Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Airey Houses

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for his Department to monitor the results of the inspections he has recommended of every Airey house in England for structural defects.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I did so in May of last year.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the Minister take account of the fact that there are 800 such houses in Doncaster, 200 in Barnsley and 300 in Rotherham and that the tenants are now worried about the fire hazard and structural defects? Is he aware that the local authorities are deeply worried about the future costs to them of replacing those houses? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the poor owners—like some local authorities—purchased those houses not knowing about their structural defects and the fire hazard, and are extremely worried about how much they will cost them in the near future?

Mr. Stanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the number of Airey houses in his constituency, which, geographically, has one of the highest concentrations of such houses in the country.
As regards the capital implications for local authorities, we have made it clear that refurbishment and, if necessary, replacement work on Airey houses are factors that we would take into account in making HIP allocations. I am sure that the local authorities in his area will draw attention to that fact in their HIP submissions for 1983–84.
In reply to what the hon. Gentleman said about the owners of Airey houses, I am aware that there have been a number of sales at valuations which did not reflect the defects that have now become apparent in those properties. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the position of private owners, who bought their houses before the defects became known, is under consideration.

Mr. Cormack: I should like to reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). As my hon. Friend will be aware, a number of my constituents have purchased Airey houses. Will he ensure that, however the sum is arrived at, the owners will get at least as much in compensation as they would get if the houses were compulsorily acquired for a motorway or some other purpose and were perfectly good houses?

Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the problem. I, too, have constituents in the same position. I cannot today make any commitment of a financial nature, but I have said that we have this aspect under consideration.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Minister confirm that he has received the report from the National Building Agency about defective houses in new towns? If so, will he guarantee that the district councils involved will have the opportunity to study not only the report but the Minister's comments before he takes any action? Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that thousands of tenants are involved, including hundreds of tenants in my constituency in the new town of Peterlee?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter does not arise on this question. I am not aware of there being any Airey houses among the new town housing that he mentioned. I can confirm that we have now received the report.

Mr. John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that in rural areas many Airey houses have large gardens? If they are to be demolished, there may be scope for building perhaps three times the number of new dwellings, but there will be no scope for providing special dwellings for old people. Therefore, there will be a grave knock-on effect from the defects of Airey houses. Can my hon. Friend assure us about the provision of special accommodation for old people, because many old people are living in Airey houses?

Mr. Stanley: I am well aware that my hon. Friend and geographical neighbour in constituency terms has a considerable concentration of Airey houses in his area. The decision about the type of accommodation that may be provided is entirely a matter for the district council, but I am sure that the Maidstone borough council will want to draw attention to the capital implications in the HIP submission that it will shortly make to the Department.

Water Meters

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to require the fitting of water meters into all new domestic properties as a condition of planning permission.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): No, Sir. Optional metering is now available in most areas of England and Wales and purchasers of new houses can ask the builder to fit a water meter during construction. Detailed guidance notes on the installation of household water meters can be obtained from the water authorities.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is evidence that suggests that water meters significantly reduce the water charges on both domestic and commercial properties? Does it not make sense to encourage the installation of water meters in all new properties?

Mr. Shaw: I accept that there is evidence that water metering can be beneficial. However, I do not consider it right to make it other than an optional service to the consumer. The benefits available for high street shops and other commercial premises are considerable. The benefits for domestic premises depend very much on rateable value.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that one of the pressures for metering is the imposition of water rates, particularly on elderly people and widows living by themselves and people on low incomes? If he does not intend to make any change in respect of water metering, will he consider changes in legislation to allow water rebates for such people?

Mr. Shaw: No, Sir. Water bills now reflect charges for a service that has already been consumed, whereas rates are local taxes. Therefore, as with other energy bills, the householder who finds it difficult to pay can obtain some redress through the DHSS.

Mr. Squire: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the advantages of the metering of water supplies are to some extent not being realised because of the high cost of installation of the meters? Will he keep that matter under review?

Mr. Shaw: There is a variable cost. Much depends on the individual property and the distance from the main. The average cost of internal domestic fitting is about £60.

Mr. Marks: The Minister agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that industrial and domestic users were better off as a result of water metering. Who is paying the bill?

Mr. Shaw: I made it clear that industrial and commercial consumers were likely to be significantly better off. The position of the domestic consumer depends on the rateable value. However, the costs and the benefits should be spread amongst all consumers.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities are still not completing council house sales with what he judges to be sufficient speed.

Mr. Stanley: Those authorities whose right-to-buy progress is being monitored were listed in the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on 13 May. To those authorities there should now be added the Wrekin district council and the Orbit Housing Association.
I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that there has been a substantial acceleration of progress in recent months; that last year there was the largest number of sales ever recorded; and that since the Government came to office the number of council house sales completed in Great Britain up to 31 March is estimated to be approximately 300,000.

Mr. Knox: Is there not a strong case now for introducing legislation specifying the maximum period between an application by a council tenant to purchase his house and the completion of the sale by the council? Why does it take some councils so much longer than the private sector to effect such sales?

Mr. Stanley: I have every sympathy with the spirit behind my hon. Friend's question. The problem of specifying a statutory maximum period is that there are enormous variations in the complexity of sales of individual houses and flats. To prescribe a practical and realistic maximum would give rise to the danger of its being applied to every property, when there are many simple cases that can be dealt with very quickly. We must rest on the basic provisions of the present legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers to intervene in any case where the tenant's right-to-buy is not being applied effectively and expeditiously. He has already exercised those powers in respect of one authority. The possibility of exercising that power elsewhere has contributed substantially to the acceleration of the progress that has been made.

Mr. Winnick: When will the Government apply the same urgency to the building of council houses as they do to their sale? Should there not be some kind of hit-list or penal action against the Government for allowing the building of council dwellings to fall to its lowest level since the early 1920s?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that that question arises on the right-to-buy. The Labour Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported allowed the construction of council houses to fall to the lowest level since 1945 before they left office.
On the general issue, I draw attention to the fact that in the last financial year local authorities underspent substantially. It is certainly our hope and wish that all local authorities will be able to make full use of the increased financial provision that is available this year.

Mr. Heddle: Notwithstanding the encouraging reply that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), will my hon. Friend confirm that some Labour-controlled authorities are still employing intimidation tactics by imposing onerous restrictive covenants, black lists, and so on, to dissuade council tenants from exercising their democratic right to buy their homes?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that some of the covenants that have been used by, I am glad to say, a limited number of authorities are not considered to be reasonable. We have taken up this matter in detail with certain authorities. In some instances, the local authorities concerned have agreed to make changes to their basic conveyancing documents. We are watching this aspect extremely closely.

Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that several of my constituents have been struggling for well over a year to buy their flats and maisonettes from the London borough of Greenwich? Now that a purchase price has finally been agreed, they are being asked for service charges which in some instances amount to £75 a week for an ordinary council flat on a not particularly attractive estate. Does the Minister regard that as fair and reasonable? If not, what will he do about it?

Mr. Stanley: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have already taken this matter up with the Greenwich council and are actively pursuing it.

Rates

Mr. Cyril Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current levels of rates for local authorities in the North-West of England.

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the latest levels of rate increase in the North-West region.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): The average


general rate poundage in local authorities in the North-West region is 177p. Average general rate increases in April were just over 14 per cent.
Details for the individual authorities will be circulated in the Official Report.

Mr. Smith: Does the Minister agree that the rate increase for the Cheshire county council is 18·6 per cent? If so—I see that the Minister agrees-will he explain why, in a party political broadcast on 5 May, the Secretary of State stated that, because of the SDP-Liberal Alliance and the Labour group in Cheshire, the rate increase was 32·5 per cent?
If not for the sake of honesty, at least for the record, does not the Minister consider that he should now agree that it was 18·6 per cent? Is he aware, first, that there are no SDP councillors on the Cheshire county council, and, secondly, that Liberal councillors voted with Conservative councillors against Labour councillors' rates proposals?

Mr. King: I should like to see the figures that the hon. Gentleman is quoting. The figure that I have here is 18·6 per cent. I am not sure whether he was quoting from the original rate increase or the supplementary rate increase. The Liberal Party is not the only party capable of using figures to suit its purposes.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was seeking to make the point that Conservative authorities generally have lower rate increases than authorities of other political persuasions, looking at the overall pattern that would be correct.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister accept that, instead of criticising Liberal-controlled councils, such as Liverpool city council, which had an 8 per cent. increase in its rates this year, it would be far better if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to restore the massive cuts in the rate support grant than to crow about Liberal or Labour authorities having to grapple with the problems that he has created? Liverpool has sustained cuts of about £63 million over the past four years, which have resulted in massive reductions in service.

Mr. King: With respect, I shall not take lectures from the hon. Gentleman on how to help the city of Liverpool, nor shall I condemn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Nobody could have done more to alleviate the problems of Merseyside. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity to rise to his feet and pay tribute to the work that has been done.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Even if the Liberals on the Cheshire county council prevented the realisation of the Labour party's worst intentions, does my right hon. Friend agree that the rate increase of 18·6 per cent. is well above the level of inflation and that Cheshire ratepayers are now paying for having been stupid enough to put in a Labour authority?

Mr. King: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct to draw attention to the fact that in those counties controlled by Conservative authorities rates increased on average by 11 per cent., in Labour-controlled authorities by, on average, 31 per cent. and in counties that were unfortunate enough to end up with a mish-mash of Opposition parties, rates increased on average by 21 per cent.

Hon. Members: Eight per cent.

Mr. Oakes: I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) that it is a question not of who is in control of a council but of that council's problems. Does the Minister agree that the rate support grant arrangements do not accord with the problems of a council, whether that council is Labour-controlled, Liberal-controlled or Conservative-controlled? That is the fault of the rate support grant.

Mr. King: It would be the biggest delusion to blame the problems faced by several authorities on difficulties in the rate support grant. The problems faced by the vast majority of authorities are those of management, organisation and the need for determination to achieve value for money. That is a high priority.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ratepayers of the North-West should be very pleased that they are not in the GLC area? Unless something is done to curb the financial irresponsibility of that lunatic body, and particularly the way in which it conducts London Transport, the burden will fall on, among others, the taxpayers of the North-West.

Mr. King: I am aware that on walking out of the Chamber and looking across the river I see a record of the number of unemployed in London. As the figure increases, it will become the most telling epitaph to the GLC's disastrous policies. As a result of its rating and transport policies, it is clearly driving both jobs and people out of London.

Following is the information:


Area
General rate percentage increase (1981–82 to April 1982)
General rate poundage (p) from April 1982


Greater Manchester


Bolton
15·7
162·08


Bury
13·1
189·50


Manchester
11·2
228·20


Oldham
14·7
164·14


Rochdale
20·7
215·50


Salford
13·7
157·50


Stockport
16·0
157·60


Tameside
19·0
191·00


Trafford
18·4
154·54


Wigan
16·7
196·04


Merseyside


Knowsley
24·3
190·54


Liverpool
14·4
197·97


St. Helens
9·5
194·77


Sefton
23·6
165·36


Wirral
17·9
181·50


Cheshire


Chester
17·7
172·80


Congleton
16·8
166·30


Crewe and Nantwich
16·8
170·53


Ellesmere Port and Neston
15·6
170·40


Halton
15·8
171·43


Macclesfield
17·2
164·40


Vale Royal
16·2
168·93


Warrington
18·0
173·36


Lancashire


Blackburn
3·6
163·53


Blackpool
5·6
151·50


Burnley
4·4
166·55


Chorley
5·7
140·25


Fylde
3·0
142·42


Hyndburn
6·9
159·32

Area
General rate percentage increase (1981–82 to April 1982)
General rate poundage (p) from April 1982


Lancaster
3·1
150·00


Pendle
4·0
154·48


Preston
5·3
150·05


Ribble Valley
4·3
148·88


Rossendale
3·2
159·71


South Ribble
4·9
140·61


West Lancashire
4·7
143·08


Wyre
3·6
142·97

Craft Apprenticeships

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the reduction in craft apprenticeships in his own Department and in local authorities during the past three years.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The latest figures from the Local Government Training Board show that the number of craft apprentices in local authorities in England and Wales was more than 300 greater at the end of 1981 than it was three years earlier—6,897 in 1981 compared with 6,574 in 1978. Over the same period the number of craft apprentices in my Department fell from about 1,100 to 600, mainly because the Property Services Agency direct labour force was being reduced.

Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware that only three months ago the Secretary of State said that he wanted training programmes in the construction industry to be maintained? However, as a result of the cuts, Manchester has had to cut its apprentice intake from 140 in 1979 to 39 in 1982, and there have also been cuts in other cities and in his Department. Handing over Government and local authorities work to private industry has not solved the apprenticeship problem. Will the Secretary of State begin to take his word seriously?

Sir George Young: I am aware of the situation in Manchester, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment has offered to meet representatives of the city's direct works committee. As the PSA direct labour force is being reduced because work is being contracted out, its apprentice requirement has fallen.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the report of the independent training research group shows that direct labour organisations have a far better record on apprenticeships than private builders? Why does he continue to put pressure on the PSA and on direct labour organisations when it means that they must reduce training and apprenticeships? If the Minister is concerned about circular 6/82, will he meet local authorities and representatives of the building industry, such as the Union of Construction and Allied Trades and Technicians, because they are concerned that skills will not be available if there is an upturn in the economy? If the Minister wants to improve training, will he discuss that matter? However, if he does not intend to help—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Both questions and answers have been unreasonably long. That is very unfair to those who have questions on the Order Paper.

Sir George Young: The figures show that there has been an increase, not a decrease, in the number of

apprentices in direct labour organisations. I have seen representatives of the trade unions. The PSA's intake may be higher in the next few years than it is at present.

Mr. Charles Morris: In the meeting to discuss the reduction in the number of craft apprentices in Manchester, will the Minister ensure that his ministerial colleague remembers that one in three youngsters in Manchester between the ages of 16 and 24 are unemployed? That makes the issue of craft apprentices crucial.

Sir George Young: I am sure that that type of issue will be raised at the meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment.

Rents

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to monitor the level of rents currently being charged in enterprise zones.

Mr. Giles Shaw: We have commissioned consultants to monitor the effects on rents of enterprise zones. We are being kept informed of interim findings, but they will not be reporting fully on what has happened in all the zones until the autumn. This report will include information about rents being charged on comparable properties in the zones and in the surrounding areas.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome that aspect of comparability. Is my hon. Friend aware that a business that sets up in an enterprise zone is not charged rates for 10 years, whereas businesses that are striving to create new jobs in the surrounding local authority area have to pay rates? It is senseless that people should be encouraged to move out of one area into an enterprise zone, thereby causing the loss of jobs in one area and the creation of jobs in another. Is that not silly?

Mr. Shaw: That inference cannot yet be drawn. We are monitoring the performance of the zones. The results will undoubtedly be varied, but to date the information is that many jobs and prospects have been created in zones and that they are of great benefit to the area as a whole.

Mr. Eastham: Has any information been fed back to the Department to show that, as a result of the concessions given to enterprise zones, some of the owners of land in those zones are increasing rents considerably? If so, that means that we, as taxpayers, are subsidising those landowners.

Mr. Shaw: The consultants will monitor that problem and we shall consider the results carefully.

Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that local authorities, which own much of the land in enterprise zones, are charging far higher rents than those dictated by market forces and that, in addition, they are claiming back money from the Treasury for rates that would have been paid if the companies had not been exempt from them? Will he ensure that that aspect is monitored?

Mr. Shaw: Rating valuations and the rates charged outside zones are matters not for me but for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have no evidence that rents have risen to a level that nullifies the benefit of the rate concession offered in the zones.

Mr. Ioan Evans: May we have an early report on the Department's monitoring of the zones? The original idea of the zones was to attract manufacturing industry, but are they not attracting retailers and wholesalers and gaining financial benefits that are denied to those outside the zones who are competing with them?

Mr. Shaw: We shall consider the report carefully when it is available and take advice on whether to make it available to hon. Members. The way in which zones affect local industries and produce net additional jobs undoubtedly varies. However, the Government remain committed to the view that the experiment is catalytic in nature and, therefore, of great benefit.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Bulmer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the present method of calculating the rate support grant gives sufficient weight to the problems of rural depopulation.

Mr. King: The Association of County Councils has made proposals for increasing the recognition given to the cost of providing services in areas of sparse population in the 1983–84 rate support grant settlement. These proposals are currently under discussion. I shall be reviewing the position on this during the summer.

Mr. Bulmer: Will my hon. Friend consider extending the sparsity factor beyond education to other essential services? Will he relate it to the local community and not to the county as a whole, which penalises counties, such as Hereford and Worcester, which have declining rural populations offset by growth points such as Redditch new town?

Mr. King: Such matters are under discussion in the grants working groups. I shall be interested in the outcome of those discussions. It would be unwise to go further than that now, although we are aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Marks: Is giving more money to the county councils the answer to the problem, since many county council members are farmers and landowners who are causing the depopulation? Will the Minister consider the suggestion that the Government should do for rural problems in specific grants what they have been doing for the inner cities?

Mr. King: We shall examine the problem in the light of the RSG settlement. There has been a sparsity factor, as we recognised in the previous needs assessment. That is a matter to be examined. There is something on which to spend the money, in the sense that there are higher costs for services provided by councils, such as school transport, when much greater distances might have to be covered than in the inner urban areas. That is an illustration of how higher costs may fall on a rural and more depopulated area.

Ethnic Minority Projects (Funds)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra funds have been provided by his Department for the ethnic minorities since the appointment of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) as the Minister responsible for race relations within his Department.

Sir George Young: There is no special allocation of funds for ethnic minorities within the Department's programmes. However, urban programme approvals announced since my appointment show that the upward trend in support for ethnic minority projects is continuing.

Mr. Proctor: Does my hon. Friend agree that no level of public expenditure and no level of extra resources devoted to the inner city areas will be sufficient to avoid a deterioration in race relations and further riots this summer?

Sir George Young: When I need advice on these matters I shall turn to a large number of my hon. Friends who represent the inner cities before I turn to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Asians in my constituency, the majority of whom support the Government, greatly admire the work done by him and welcome his appointment, as I do?

Sir George Young: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He represents more members of my party than the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).

Housing Improvement Grants

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the take-up of the increased improvement grants announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement; and if he will extend these arrangements.

Mr. Stanley: We shall not have authority-by-authority figures for improvement grant applications received since the Budget until the autumn, but the early indications of the response to the Budget initiative are encouraging. We have no present plans to extend the higher rate of grant announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor beyond the end of this calendar year.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister keep the matter under review, because 400,000 building workers are on the dole and many properties could benefit from improvement? Does the Minister agree that the general economic effects of continuing the work would be immeasurable?

Mr. Stanley: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. One of my right hon. and learned Friend's objectives was to make the 90 per cent. grant time-limited to ensure an early influx of applications for improvement grant work to produce an early benefit in employment for the construction industry.

Mr. Colvin: In view of the rising costs of heating, what response has there been to circular 11/82 on home insulation grants?

Mr. Stanley: Following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget announcement, there has been a further allocation of funds for home insulation work. The bids from local authorities were somewhat below the total available. It seems that local authorities have sufficient funds in hand for the work.

Partnership Authorities

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the progress of the partnership authorities.

Mr. King: I believe that the partnerships are now operating in a more effective way following the changes that we have made, and we are anxious to stimulate further activity to tackle inner city problems. In this connection my right hon. Friend, myself and other Ministers will be holding a series of one-day presentations in different parts of the country covering the whole range of initiatives that can help these problems.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new Conservative-controlled Birmingham city council values its partnership authority and would welcome an early meeting with the Minister to discuss the many problems that we must solve if we are to put Birmingham on the move again?

Mr. King: I welcome what my hon. Friend says. As chairman of the Birmingham partnership I can say that there has been good bipartisan support from both sides of the council. In recognition of the importance of these issues I can confirm that the first of the one-day presentations, with my right hon. Friend, myself and other colleagues, will take place next Monday in Birmingham, with representatives from Birmingham and other neighbouring areas.

Mr. Eastham: Do not Ministers contradict themselves when they recognise the needs of the partnership areas and yet, using the illustration of Manchester, take away assisted area status, which would help to create jobs and prosperity in an area?

Mr. King: I do not want to trespass into the problem of assisted area status, but one of the problems was the wide distribution. In an effort to help everybody, nobody was helped. We are determined to bring real help to the assisted areas.

Mr. Steen: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to help the inner city areas is to reclaim derelict land? Can he explain why the Government's plan in the Derelict Land Bill is to give the public sector a 100 per cent. grant towards land reclamation, but the private sector only 80 per cent.? Surely we should discriminate in favour of the private rather than the public sector.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill to which he has referred, which I hope will complete its progress in the House by the end of this week, concerns much more than the possibility of more flexibility in the derelict land programme. The 80 per cent. grant is an improvement on the arrangements that exist. Derelict land reclamation is an important part of our inner city programme. We have taken a range of initiatives for which we shall seek wider understanding in the country. We believe that we have created a package of considerable size to help with the problems.

Mr. Tilley: Does the Minister appreciate that the word "partnership" rings somewhat hollow in Lambeth, because the Secretary of State has decided that, in relation to the biggest development in the Lambeth partnership area for many years—the Vauxhall bridge foot development—the local consultation and democratic procedures are being swept away by the use of a special development order, which means that the local people, with whom the Secretary of State claims to be in partnership, have no say at all in what happens on that site?

Mr. King: I understand that the development is taking place in accordance with local planning policies and

conforms with them. I understand that local people were invited to be involved in the procedure. I do not wish to trespass on a matter that will come up later, but in relation to the south bank of the Thames one can only pray for some initiative to bring more distinction to the architecture. If the present process contributes to that it should be welcomed.

European Community Map

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of the map of the European Community, its member States, regions and administrative units, which marks Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but not England, have been distributed by the Ordnance Survey; and if he will take steps to prevent further circulation of this map until the word "England" has been added.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Ordnance Survey has distributed about 9,500 copies of the smaller version of the European Community map, at 1 in 8 million scale, and about 6,000 copies of the larger version. The map is published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. The Office and not the Ordnance Survey is responsible for its editorial content. The map is concerned with the major regional units of a member State. In this context the nomenclature is appropriate and I do not intend to seek its alteration.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: How was it that the Ordnance Survey, a distinguished agency of the Crown, could bear to distribute this matter? Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that either it is overprinted with the word "England" in the appropriate place, or reprinted?

Mr. Shaw: No, Sir. I shall not take that step. I remind my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom, and not England, is shown on the map as the member State. The other regions of England that are shown are comparable with Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland because they are regional planning areas.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that increasingly, unfortunately, there is a tendency to omit, or be shy about mentioning, the words "England" or "English"? Is that not thoroughly disgraceful? Should not the Government put a stop to it immediately?

Mr. Shaw: I trespass on dangerous territory when I have to clash with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). I can plead only that the map is produced neither by the Government nor by the Ordnance Survey as an editorial matter. It is produced for a customer—the European Economic Community.

Inner Urban Programme

Mr. Tilley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans further to expand the inner urban programme.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I announced last December that in 1982–83 urban programme resources would be £270 million, the highest level ever in real terms. Public expenditure plans for 1983–84 are still under consideration.

Mr. Tilley: I welcome the increase that has already taken place. Does the Secretary of State accept that since his announcement evidence in my constituency and elsewhere has shown that youth unemployment is 50 per cent. higher even than last year and that there is a need for a massive increase in next year's inner urban programme to provide not only temporary work but successful schemes to help viable enterprises survive and provide long-term jobs?

Mr. Heseltine: I am not sure that I wholly agree with the solutions advocated by the hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that his London borough has been invited to bid for part of the £70 million worth of urban development grant. which aims to attract private sector funds at a considerable gearing ratio into the inner cities. I hope that the borough will participate.

Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State accept that the partnership committees are a much better way of channelling money into the inner cities than organisations such as urban development corporations, which are about as democratic as the Argentine junta? Does he also accept that far too many agencies are meddling in the affairs of inner cities and that a partnership committee, using the urban programme, is a better way of channelling resources? Will he also consider involving the industrial and commercial communities in their organisation?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman reveals clearly that he has never attended a meeting of a partnership committee.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that urban areas such as the Greater London Council area need every penny that they can get for urban renewal? Is he not disturbed to hear that the chairman of the proposed Greater London enterprise board will cost London ratepayers £72,000 a year and that he is the deputy Labour leader of Wandsworth borough council?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not make such appointments, but the issue is not how much a person is paid but whether he can deliver the results. The matter will be judged by that standard.

Homes (Inside Sanitation)

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in England and Wales are without inside sanitation.

Sir George Young: The 1981 census of population shows that 479,000 households living in permanent buildings in England and Wales did not have an indoor WC. That figure represents 2·7 per cent. of all households in permanent dwellings.

Mr. Howells: In view of the seriousness of the position, what plans does the Minister have to help local authorities to solve the problem?

Sir George Young: We have introduced mandatory intermediate grants to owner-occupiers, landlords and tenants to help with the cost of installation. Applications made before the end of this year are eligible for a grant of up to 90 per cent. That is one of the best offers that has been made to try to tackle this serious problem.

Mr.. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that it is a condemnation of the Government that they allow so

many hundreds of thousands of houses to have no indoor toilet facilities? What will the Government do? We have 3 million unemployed, among them thousands of building workers. Why cannot we build more houses and cure that terrible crime against society?

Sir George Young: I outlined the action that the Government are taking to make a further impact on the problem, but it is right to put the matter into perspective. The present figure of 2·7 per cent. must be contrasted with the 1971 figure of 12 per cent. We are tackling the problem.

Petrol (Lead Content)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the effects of lead in petrol.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Between 1 January and 24 May, 75 letters were received by the Department, three-quarters from right hon. and hon. Members, the remainder from industrialists, local authority representatives, officers of other organisations and members of the public. The Campaign for Lead-Free Air invited its supporters to write to me on 24 May, and a further 130 letters had been received by the end of last week, mainly from members of the public.

Mr. Dubs: Do the Government believe that there is a safe level of lead?

Mr. Shaw: The Government believe that there is a tolerable level of lead that is free from hazard, but our overall policy must be directed to closing the gap between what is regarded as totally safe and what is regarded as acceptable. We are closing the gap by the fastest possible means and are reducing the lead content of petrol from 0·4 to 0·15 grams per litre.

Dr. Mawhinney: For how long do the Government intend to withstand the overriding pressure of the evider ce that any amount of lead is harmful to adults and children?

Mr. Shaw: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I did riot fully hear his question.

Dr. Mawhinney: My question was: for how long does my hon. Friend intend to withstand the overriding pressure of evidence that any amount of lead is harmful to adults and children?

Mr. Shaw: I have made it clear to my hon. Friend several times that we are taking steps substantially to reduce the hazard across the wide range of its applications in petrol, water or the air. That is the correct policy for us to pursue.

Derelict Land

Mr. Hawksley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of vacant and derelict land within new town boundaries are currently entered on the register set up for that purpose.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I fear that it would require a disproportionate effort to estimate the total, but if my hon. Friend has a case in mind I shall consider it.

Mr. Hawksley: Although I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether, because the amount is quite large, he is prepared to give further encouragement to new towns to release surplus land?

Mr. Shaw: We certainly wish to do so. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many other owners in new towns besides the new town development corporations. The land registers are based on local authority districts, but I accept the tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Steen: As the Under-Secretary of State well recognises that the best way to rid the country of derelict and dormant land is to reclaim it and to use private money to do so, will he explain why, in the new Bill, the private sector receives only an 80 per cent. grant whereas nationalised industries and the public sector receive 100 per cent. grants?

Mr. Shaw: The reason is simply that the public sector grant-aid system is designed to encourage private sector investment in the development of land thus reclaimed. It is wrong for my hon. Friend to insist that the only benefit to the private sector is the absolute rate of grant available. It also benefits from the major activities undertaken by local authorities.

Mr. Cadbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to ensure that derelict land once cleared is developed and occupied.

Mr. Heseltine: In the programme for this year I have given priority to schemes by local authorities that involve firm prior agreements with private sector interests for immediate development after reclamation. Those arrangements will continue in 1983–84, and I have just invited authorities to submit bids for the priority schemes by 1 October.

Mr. Cadbury: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that large amounts of land in the inner city area of Birmingham that are owned by British Gas and British Rail are still lying idle? Will he apply the same pressures to those nationalised industries as he has applied so successfully to local authorities to release the land for development?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I assure him that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has had conversations with the Gas Board. I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services have discussed those matters with the city authority. We shall be continuing the dialogue.

Mr. Graham: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Opposition fully support the Derelict Land Bill and related measures. We wish to see encouragement for the reinstatement of land, but we are worried about the continuing decline in the number of employees at the Department of the Environment. Will the Secretary of State assure us that there will be sufficient inspectors to ensure that when land is reclaimed there is not deposited on it toxic waste and other noxious substances? We are anxious because a shortfall in the number of inspectors many lead to decisions by the operators to negate the conditions that are attached to planning permissions.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The number of staff employed in my Department is now about 12,000 to 13,000 less that it was three years ago. However, we should not prejudice our ability to carry out essential work, such as inspecting for toxic threats.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many local authorities are unaware that they can pass derelict urban land to the private sector and build houses on half-and-half, shared ownership schemes? Will he do all that he can to ensure that the local authorities that are ignorant of that fact involve the private sector forthwith?

Mr. Heseltine: There is some lethargy and political prejudice in local authorities, but it is not ignorance.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways to use derelict land owned by local authorities is to build council houses on it? Will he help authorities in places such as Merseyside, where waiting lists are becoming longer and longer, to do that?

Mr. Heseltine: The most casual observation of Merseyside would reveal that it has the highest number of empty properties in Britain. The idea that we should build more houses—whereas the local authorities make a priority of renovating existing houses—has nothing to do with housing policy.

Damaged Cars (Compensation)

Mr. Brinton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on compensation for the owners of the cars damaged by the falling tree outside the Norman Shaw, North building in October 1981.

Sir George Young: At my request the Treasury Solicitor is discussing with the North Thames Gas Board how claims for damage might be met.

Mr. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Has he become aware that this interdepartmental nationalised industry pregnancy has now run its full term of nine months and that two secretaries of hon. Members have had their cars damaged and are considerably out of pocket? Cannot the Government recompense these secretaries while they continue arguing?

Sir George Young: Others were affected, apart from the two secretaries. The tree fell because its roots were cut, but they were not cut by my Department. The finger of suspicion has alighted on the North Thames Gas Board, which was seen digging near the area shortly before the tree fell. Time-consuming inquiries were needed to ascertain exactly what had happened. I am having a meeting with the Treasury Solicitor next week and I hope that the matter can shortly be resolved.

Rents

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the phasing of rent increases arising from the operation of section 60 of and schedule 10 to the Housing Act 1980.

Mr. Stanley: A number of letters have been received from hon. Members, the National Federation of Housing Associations and housing association tenants.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of the problem created by the operation of the Act for housing association rents? The increases in service charges are no longer able to be phased over three years and have to be paid immediately. Is he aware that as a result of this some pensioners are having their rents increased by up to £10 a week? Will he and the Government take action to limit such increases?

Mr. Stanley: I shall examine the statutory service charge position and if I can shed any further light on it for the hon. Gentleman I shall do so. The problem goes back to 1972, when a statutory ceiling on housing association rent increases of 75p was imposed as part of the counter-inflation policy of that time. Throughout the tenure of office of the Labour Government there was no upward adjustment of that figure. That is why there is a certain amount of catching up to be done to meet the fair rent level.

Mr. Tilley: As the hon. Gentleman is taking us down memory lane, does he remember that in Committee on the Housing Bill 1980 Opposition Members told him that housing associations were deeply concerned that statutory burdens would be placed on them to create exactly the unfairness and hardship that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) has mentioned? Does he recollect that the Opposition tabled amendments that would have averted these impositions?

Mr. Stanley: My memories of the proceedings in Committee while considering the Housing Bill 1980 will for ever be with me. I think that the hon. Gentleman will remember that the statutory position created by that measure places housing association tenants within the existing fair rent system. No housing association tenant is being asked to pay a higher rent than any private sector tenant. All housing association tenants have exactly the same rent allowance protection as all other private tenants.

Mr. Pitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current average levels of council rents in England and Wales.

Sir George Young: Full details are not yet available, but preliminary estimates indicate that average unrebated rents of local authority dwellings in England and Wales stood at some £13.54 per week at the end of April.

Mr. Pitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he aware of the soaring discrepancy in many areas between housing association rents and local authority rents due to rent officers' registrations? Will he consult rent officers so that all rents in the community housing sector can be kept at parity?

Sir George Young: My Department has no control over the rents that are fixed by rent officers. If we were to start to go down the road that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, there would have to be a major change of policy.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are paying rent for between six months and two years longer than they should because of the unwillingness of the Peterborough city council to sell council houses? When will he take action to assist these people so that they can stop paying rent and start to pay mortgages?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction keeps under close scrutiny the progress made by local authorities in implementing the right-to-buy policy. I understand that he will shortly be writing to the local authority at Peterborough on this subject.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister says that his Department has no responsibility for the decisions of rent officers, is it not a fact that his Department has issued

beacon rents, which are guidelines on regional averages, and that rent officers are using these guidelines to increase rents in their areas?

Sir George Young: I understand that the Department gives no advice or direction to rent officers. However, it makes available some information, which the officers asked the Department to supply.

Mr. Marlow: In how many local authority areas is the rent revenue from council house rents less than the cost of management, administration and maintenance?

Sir George Young: I should need notice of that question before I could even begin to answer it.

Mr. Allan Roberts: How many local authorities' housing revenue accounts are in surplus because of the high rents that are now being charged? How many of them are making a profit out of their council tenants?

Sir George Young: I refer to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

Construction Industry

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has had from the heads of the construction industry concerning the future prospects of the industry.

Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend and I met the Group of Eight on 15 February and we are regularly in touch with many people in the construction industry. Whilst the industry is still concerned with its work load, the measures taken by my right hon. and learned Friend in his Budget have been welcomed, and it is encouraging that so far this year there has been a rise in new house building in both the public and private sectors, in home improvement grants, and in construction new orders.

Mr. Hughes: When will the Government realise that the best possible stimulant for the economy is a major boost for the construction industry? Such a boost would be the means of putting the unemployed back to work. There are so many schemes—for example, road building, sewerage, railway electrification and housing—that are crying out for action. When will the order be given for the go-ahead?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman should consider the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement and the overall provision that has been made in this financial year. I am glad to say that private housing starts for the past three months were 38 per cent. more than for the same period last year and 49 per cent. more than those for the previous three months. Total orders for new construction were 13 per cent. higher than a year ago. In the first quarter of this year the improvement grants paid were 29 per cent. up on a year ago.

Mr. Kaufman: Despite the cosmetic figures that the hon. Gentleman has offered the House, unemployment and bankruptcies in the building industry are at the highest levels ever recorded. As the Government were ready to respond at short notice to the Argentine crisis by spending £1 ¼ billion, will they spend £1¼ billion on constructing 50,000 houses, thereby putting 125,000 building workers to work?

Mr. Stanley: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's definition of "cosmetic". The increase in private and public sector house building starts and the increase in home improvements, as well as the general rise in new orders for total construction work, do not suggest to me that the figures are merely cosmetic. We have made a significant increase in the gross provision available for housing and we look forward to all local authorities making full use of it this year.

World Cup

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings he has had to date with the football authorities to discuss arrangements for the World Cup.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I first met the chairman of the three Football Associations last November to discuss arrangements for the World Cup. At that meeting I established a liaison group between the Government and the football authorities to carry things forward. This group has met formally on four occasions, and has also met together in Spain for discussions with the Spanish authorities in the areas where our teams were due to play. There has been regular and informal contact in between these meetings.

Mr. Canavan: Has the Minister yet been able to ascertain the exact circumstances of the violent confrontation between Scottish and English football fans at Lloret de Mar last night after the Scotland v Soviet Union match? As the Scottish Office Minister responsible for sport is reported to have been at the match, would he not be an appropriate person to conduct an on-the-spot investigation into this tragic and deplorable incident, which should not be allowed to mar one of the greatest sporting occasions in the world?

Mr. Macfarlane: So far I have not had detailed reports of the incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I and other Ministers have attended some of the matches over the past week and, from what I have seen, the behaviour of our fans in the stadium has been exemplary. There have been one or two bad examples outside the stadium. I shall look into the incident at Lloret de Mar and report back in due course.

Mr. Crouch: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important meetings in the World Cup that are now about to take place will be carried out by the English team and that we hope that it will win all those meetings?

Mr. Macfarlane: That is a statement which I—and I am sure other hon. Members—wholeheartedly support.

Mr. Canavan: England got an easy draw.

Council House Sales

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made in selling council houses to sitting tenants.

Mr. Stanley: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox).

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have every reason to be proud of the fact that we have ensured that so many thousands of families have the opportunity of becoming owner-occupiers who otherwise would never have had that opportunity? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the arrangements in his Department to ensure, first, that councils that are not co-operating with the Government's policy are sorted out and, secondly, that councils meeting genuine problems, such as difficulties over the ownership of property, can be assisted by his Department?

Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is an important achievement by the Government that about 300,000 council dwellings have become owner-occupied since the Government came to office. I assure my hon. Friend that I am satisfied with the rigorous and detailed measures that we take inside the Department to monitor progress in general. I am also aware that we must take into account the limited number of cases when there are special technical difficulties, to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Falkland Islands

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the important letter that the Prime Minister wrote on 3 February stating that the Falkland Islands were sufficiently protected against aggression, should we not, as a matter of urgency, have a statement from the Prime Minister? Some 250 members of the Armed Forces died in the Falklands operation. Many more were injured. In view of the letter that has now come to light, a statement should be given at once to the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for which I am responsible.

National Health Service (Pay)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on pay negotiations in the National Health Service.
On 10 June I told the House that the Government were considering the points made by the Royal College of Nursing following the ballot on the pay offer of 6·4 per cent. I reported also the initiative I had taken in asking Mr. Lowry to undertake consultations with the Health Service unions affiliated to the TUC to establish whether there was any common ground between us. My objective has been to secure agreement so that negotiations can be resumed in the respective Whitley councils.
Following careful consideration of the position and after consultation with some of the chairmen of the management sides of the Whitley councils, I entered discussions with the representatives of the Health Service unions and professional bodies. I was able to tell them that the Government had decided that a further £90 million would be available in negotiating a new pay offer—partly from the Government and partly from the existing Health Service budget. Together with the additional resources made available in March this year, this would increase the average pay of nurses and midwives and the professions supplementary to medicine by 7½ per cent., ambulance men and hospital pharmacists by 6½ per cent. and other groups of staff by 6 per cent. The increases for particular grades would be for negotiation within the Whitley councils. These improved offers both maintain the special position of nurses and other staff providing direct patient care and bring offers to all groups of staff on a par with other recent awards in the public sector.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and I have been in discussions over the last two days with the Royal College of Nursing and the Health Service unions affiliated to the TUC. I am glad to report to the House that the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Health Visitors Association and the Association of Nurse Administrators have agreed to recommend to their responsible bodies that their negotiators be authorised to return to the negotiating table. I hope that their Whitley council will resume discussions very shortly.
Regrettably, the representatives of the Health Service unions rejected the improved offers out of hand and were unwilling to resume any negotiations. They intend to report that back to the full TUC health services committee with the proposal that industrial action should continue.
The Government have moved substantially to improve the offers to the Health Service. The average increases in pay offered for Health Service staff range between 6 per cent. and 7·5 per cent. That compares with 5·9 per cent. for civil servants, 6 per cent. for teachers and 6·1 per cent. for the Armed Services.
I do not believe that the Health Service unions are justified in rejecting this offer and I deplore their decision to continue a campaign of industrial action, which can only harm patient care. I hope that they, and in particular their members, will reconsider the position very carefully and I urge them to return to negotiations in the Whitley councils.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is no use his regretting the chaos and disruption in the National Health Service, which we all deeply regret, when that chaos and disruption has been caused directly by his pigheaded, maladroit and provocative behaviour? For evidence of that behaviour we need look no further than what happened yesterday, when the right hon. Gentleman attempted to reach an agreement with the Royal College of Nursing—which represents only a minority of the workers concerned in the present dispute—while letting the TUC unions kick their heels for no less than four hours, with the result that they had to find out the details of the new offer from the press conference that was held by the Royal College of Nursing. If the Minister behaves in such a way, does he not understand that he is bound to increase the anger and bitterness that are felt already in the National Health Service?
Is it not a fact that the present offer, apart from its divisive nature, will still mean a real reduction in he standard of living of some of the lowest-paid workers in the country? It is no use the Secretary of State mentioning carefully selected other groups of workers and omitting to mention some higher-paid sections of the community, such as judges and higher grades of civil servants, not to mention the police services, which have had vastly higher offers than those made to the National Health Service. Is it not also a fact that in any case much of the money for the new offer will have to be paid directly from cuts in the services to patients, about which the Minister keeps weeping crocodile tears during the industrial action?
All through the dispute the Secretary of State has refused to allow genuine negotiations in the Whitley councils. He is still doing that. He has refused to go to independent arbitration, which is completely indefensible. He has failed to persuade—because he cannot persuade—the workers in the National Health Service that there is any sense of justice or fairness in the way in which the Government are treating different groups of workers. As long as that continues, is not the dispute likely to be prolonged? If that happens, does not the Secretary of State bear a heavy responsibility for the damage that is being caused to the National Health Service?

Mr. Fowler: I totally reject virtually everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. He should know that two separate negotiations were taking place from the beginning. The Royal College of Nursing and the other professional organisations are not affiliated to the TUC and the TUC does not negotiate for them. Therefore, it is necessary that two sets of negotiations take place.
I asked the unions yesterday whether it was procedure or handling that was keeping us apart. They said that that was not so and that they rejected the substance of the offers. Let us have no more of such nonsense. The fact is that at no stage did the unions mention any other figure than 12 per cent., which is totally unrealistic.
We have made a fair offer. It means an average increase of at least 6 per cent. It is on a par with the offers that were made to civil servants, teachers and the Armed Forces. [HON. MEMBERS: "Top salaries?"] I do not believe that industrial action can conceivably be justified in the context of the new offer. I hope above all that the Opposition will now take the opportunity of condemning industrial action that harms patient care.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is aware that the main business today falls under the allocation of time motion. Therefore, we must be fair to those who wish to debate the Northern Ireland Bill. I suggest that questions are finished in a quarter of an hour, at five minutes to four.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend be assured that the vast majority of hon. Members reject utterly the accusation that he is either pigheaded or maladroit? On the contrary, they recognise that he has listened most carefully and sympathetically to the case made by the National Health Service employees and has gone as far as possible to meet their demands. He has not only offered them the maximum that the country can afford but has also kept wisely in line with other groups of workers so that inflation shall not start again.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What she says is absolutely right. We are offering a 7·5 per cent. average increase to the Royal College of Nursing and to nurses in general. We want to see new permanent arrangements for nurses' pay in operation by 1 April 1983. The Government will do their utmost to achieve that.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that I have just returned from a big demonstration across the river on this matter, when it was evident that every union in the country, including the National Union of Mineworkers, the firemen and so on, were behind the National Health Service workers, who are low-paid workers by the Government's own definition? We on the Opposition Benches are determined to carry on the campaign of industrial action until the Government come to their senses. It makes no sense to reduce the standard of living of those who are among the most loyal and moderate of workers. The sooner that the Government and the Minister realise that we are determined to win the campaign for 12 per cent., the better. It is not an extravagant claim. Those concerned are merely asking to stand still. The Minister had better be warned that much more drastic action will be taken unless he is much more flexible.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed exactly what I said. He is sustaining a case for a 12 per cent. increase in pay, which will cost an additional £750 million. That is an utterly ludicrous claim for the hon. Gentleman to support. The hon. Gentleman must decide, when he mentions the other supporters, whether it is a dispute about pay or a political dispute.

Mr. Hamilton: It is both.

Mr. Fowler: I believe that the hon. Gentleman will lose any remaining credibility if he turns this into a political dispute.

Mr. David Alton: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is anxiety among some members of the Royal College of Nursing that the impression has been given—before local consultations take place tomorrow—that the offer has in some way been accepted? Will the Secretary of State say something about the long-term consequences of the divide-and-rule policy of coming to an agreement with one set of people and not another?

Mr. Fowler: It is in no sense a divide-and-rule policy. We are meeting the special case of the nurses. I should have thought that the Liberal Party—for whom I assume

the hon. Gentleman speaks—would be in favour of that. I said that the professional bodies have agreed to recommend to their responsible bodies that their negotiators be authorised to return to the negotiating table, which means the Whitley council. I hope that the Liberal Party will support that.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: May I assure my right hon. Friend that he enjoys widespread support for the way in which he has managed what have been undeniably difficult negotiations? Does he agree that the guidelines for the Conservative Party and the Government should be that the patient comes first? It is no way forward for increased provision for the National Health Service to be consistently pre-empted by excessive wage settlements.

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have increased the resources available to the National Health Service over the past two and a half years. We are spending over £12 billion on the National Health Service, and it is a matter of regret that some of the money for the additional pay will have to come from the National Health Service. There is no way round that.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Secretary of State aware that no less than 62 per cent. of full-time staff employed in the National Health Service earn less than £100 a week? Within that figure, 7·4 per cent. earn less than £60 a week. It is phoney to compare the miserable increase of 6 per cent. that he is offering them with the increase that was offered to teachers and civil servants who are on much higher salaries. Will he look at this again in all equity and produce more money to make them a better offer?

Mr. Fowler: I want to make it absolutely clear that this is the Government's final decision. Industrial action will not force us into providing more money. The sooner that that is taken on board, the better it will be.

Mr. Mike Thomas: If the nurses and hospital workers are a special case, can the Secretary of State explain why they are not on a par with the miners and the power workers, who are not special cases?

Mr. Fowler: What I have just said to the House—it is an important part of what we are offering the Royal College of Nursing and the nursing profession in general—is that we want a new permanent arrangement for nurses' pay in operation by 1 April 1983.
I also said to the trade unions—this is a point that the hon. Gentleman raised with me on a previous occasion—that if they want to talk to me about new arrangements for pay, I am perfectly willing to do so. We have had no response to that offer.

Mr. Thomas: Why are they not on a par with the miners?

Mrs. Sheila Faith: Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the House is delighted that the nurses have been made a special case, it is always unwise for them to link their pay claim with that of the ancillary workers? Although ancillary workers do important work, they do not have the long training that nurses have, nor do they have the life and death responsibility. Also, they have often not taken due notice of patient care when pursuing their pay claims.

Mr. Fowler: The Government say that a differential for nurses' pay is justified, and that is what we are fighting for. We recognise that the nurses are a special case, and I pay tribute to the fact that even on a day of action the vast majority of nurses are working.

Mr. David Ennals: Is it not extremely unwise for the Secretary of State to negotiate separately with one organisation that represents less than half the nurses and with other organisations that represent the majority? Is that not a recipe for dispute? The Secretary of State has said that the growth rate for the National Health Service in the future is only 0·5 per cent., while 0·7 per cent. is needed just to keep pace with the rising aged population. Is it not absolutely wrong that any part of the new increase should be taken from patient care when the right hon. Gentleman has said that patients must come first?

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman is in no position to lecture either me or the House on recipes for dispute.

Mr. Ennals: Answer my question.

Mr. Fowler: Those people who remember the winter of discontent remember that. To respond to the two questions—the Royal College of Nursing and the other professional organisations are not affiliated to the TUC. They have a perfect right to say that they do not want to be represented by the TUC. It gives me no pleasure to say that money will have to come from the National Health Service budget. I have made that clear throughout. The majority of the money will be new money provided by the Government, but I must make it clear that some money will have to come from the substantial National Health Service budget, and that that will have implications.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Has not the Secretary of State been too clever by half in differentiating between the groups? Has that not hardened attitudes and led to the present reaction? Does he not accept that there is a widespread feeling that he should evenhandedly put on the table an offer that at least keeps everyone up with the cost of living?

Mr. Fowler: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman believes the offer should be or how it would compare with the other offers made in the recent round of pay increases. I believe that the public are in favour of the Government's stance that the nurses are a special case.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the National Union of Mineworkers and others who have pay settlements coming up next year can show their support for the special position of the nurses and ancillary workers by asking for a pay increase lower than that which the nurses and ancillary workers are getting?

Mr. Fowler: That is right. It would be wrong if the issue was turned into a political dispute and against the interests of the Health Service.

Mr. George Foulkes: Why can the Government provide unlimited finance for the task force and promise unlimited finance to garrison and to supply the Falkland Islands but cannot find the money to meet the nurses' justified and reasonable claim?

Mr. Fowler: The Government are already providing over £12 billion for the NHS. That is not only more in cash but more in real terms than any other Government have provided.

Mr. Toby Jessel: If a doctor believes that a patient needs an operation, is permission now to be required not only from the hospital porters but from the NUM?

Mr. Fowler: There is absolutely no question of that. The only people who can make decisions about medical care are medically qualified staff. I hope that the Opposition will at least agree with that.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman study with humility the leader in The Times health supplement of 11 June which shows that to bring the nurses' pay up to the Halsbury award under the Labour Secretary of State, Barbara Castle, would require a 50 per cent. and not a 12 per cent. increase? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) that there has been no decision by the Royal College of Nursing to advise its members to accept the 7£5 per cent. award, but that it will be meeting tomorrow and offering the advice at that time? Is he aware that if he pursues his present tactics and strategy of trying to split into different categories members of the Health Service who work under the same roof he will sow discord and destroy morale to such an extent that it will take 10 years for the Health Service to recover?

Mr. Fowler: That is not the case. The Royal Collge of Nursing is entirely committed to the principle of differentials. It is rubbish to talk of splitting the Health Service. A standard percentage increase year after year for over 1 million people working in the Health Service is not realistic. It is right to show a preference on this occasion for the nurses.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on what he said about the special case for the nurses? If there is to be industrial action, will he give an undertaking that he will not permit unlawful action and that the hospitals will be protected against unlawful picketing or any other unlawful measures, especially if other unions try to come in to engage in unlawful action, so that the Health Service can be fully and properly protected?

Mr. Fowler: We issued a circular at the end of 1979 giving advice to health authorities in the event of industrial action, but the decision rests with the health authorities. If damage is done to the Health Service by people who do not work in it, there is a remedy under the industrial relations legislation.

Mr. Laurence Cunliffe: Does the Minister not understand that the 12 per cent. claim was based on need and not greed and that if we are to have good health care it is imperative to have fair pay in the Health Service? If the right hon. Gentleman is so confident about public support for what he considers to be a fair offer, will he conduct an opinion poll to see whether the public, who have given massive support to the case of the Health Service workers, are willing to pay the additional cost?

Mr. Fowler: The Government must take decisions based on the resources available. We have made the decision. It is final and I believe that it is fair.

Lead-free Petrol

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory sale of lead-free petrol by filling stations; and to ensure that all new petrol-using vehicles sold in the United Kingdom shall be designed to run on lead-free fuel.
Lead is a poison, and I welcome the opportunity to seek the leave of the House to introduce a Bill which will take us significantly further towards getting rid of all lead that enters human bodies. The Bill will set dates by which the proposals will be introduced. As new motor cars replaced old ones, those that run on petrol with lead in it would gradually be phased out until no vehicles in the country would use petrol with lead in it.
There are no vested interests arguing to take lead out of petrol. Our view is based simply on the need to safeguard the health and well-being of children mainly, but also of adults. Vested interests seek to oppose the measure. Those who argue that lead should be taken out of petrol are not influenced by financial or other considerations.
There is massive support in my constituency for the measure. I have had numerous letters and have recently been invited to a couple of meetings, all to urge that lead should be taken out of petrol. I welcome the recent establishment of the Campaign for Lead-free Air, which is doing useful work and with which I have had helpful discussions in preparation for today.
The opponents of the proposal use four arguments: they dispute the medical and scientific evidence, they argue that the measure would be too costly, they argue that the motor industry could not cope and they talk about difficulties with the EEC. I shall refute all four arguments. The Government seek refuge in the Lawther report, but it is rapidly on the way to being utterly discredited. First, it underestimated the contribution made by lead in petrol to the burden in the body. Secondly, it underestimated the proportion of lead in petrol that ultimately found its way into food. Thirdly, it set far too high a safety threshold. Fourthly, it underestimated the health risk of lead.
Nevertheless, as a result of the report, the Government took one step on which they were widely commended. They agreed to reduce the level of lead in petrol by 1985. Ministers have since said that that is all that they need do. Unfortunately for the Government's case, there has recently been increased evidence of the harm caused by lead to children's intelligence and behaviour.
It is not my purpose to go through all the scientific evidence, but I mention a little of it to support what I have said and to show that the Lawther committee's conclusions are no longer sound. Last month the British Medical Association stated:
Taking into account all the available evidence it would appear that the elimination of lead from petrol would reduce considerably the concentration of lead in the atmosphere. This in turn would produce a reduction in the burden of lead absorbed by individuals. For those individuals already exposed to higher than average concentrations of atmospheric lead, the body burden might be reduced by as much as one third …
On the basis of the evidence which it has received the BMA considers that lead is capable of causing harm at levels of exposure previously considered safe".
The BMA also said:
Associations have been demonstrated between impairment of mental functioning and lead levels below the range previously

considered harmful. At first there was some doubt about the validity of these studies but it is now generally accepted that the association is real and it should not therefore be disregarded.
The second authority is Professor Michael Rutter, a leading member of the Lawther committee. Last month he said:
The removal of lead from petrol would seem to be one of those worthwhile and safe public health actions. The evidence suggests that the removal of lead from petrol would have a quite substantial effect on reducing lead pollution and the costs are quite modest by any reasonable standard.
Thirdly, Dr. William Yule carried out some research with London schoolchildren, and his conclusions broadly replicated the North American studies of Needleman and others in that they indicated a dose-response relationship between increased lead levels and an increased likelihood that teachers would record deviant behaviour. They also demonstrated that hyperactivity was found to be significantly related to children's blood lead levels.
A few days ago The Times reported the May proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, which revealed further evidence
with the publication of a biochemical study which claims to show that even 'normal' blood lead levels can inhibit the production of haemoglobin, the essential oxygen-carrying molecule of the blood.
The evidence is overwhelming that any level of lead in petrol that goes into the human body is dangerous and should be eliminated.

Mr. Keith Best: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Dubs: The hon. Gentleman says "Absolute nonsense", but I have quoted scientific and medical authority. If he is in some doubt, what about the comment in the New Scientist, which said on 4 March that
the scientific evidence of the damage that lead can do to the brains of children convinces everyone except the deliberately obtuse.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of what the New Scientist said.
Lead in petrol is not the only source of lead. It can be found in paint, in certain industries and in water pipes, particularly water pipes in Scotland. With the possible exception of water pipes in Scotland, about which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) knows more than I do, deliberate action is now being taken to reduce lead in paint, to eliminate it as far as possible and to deal with lead emissions from industry.
The evidence is that, in contrast to what the Government maintain, lead from petrol contributes between 30 per cent. and, in urban areas, up to 60 per cent. of the lead that works its way into children's bodies.
Other countries have already taken a lead. The United States, Australia, Japan and the Soviet Union have all taken steps to eliminate lead from petrol. That is being done by phasing out the lead. For example, in the first four years of the policy, the United States, through that deliberate action, used 55 per cent. less lead in its petrol than previously. There was a reduction of 37 per cent. in the blood lead level of people measured throughout the United States, and not just in urban areas. That is clear evidence, on top of the other that I have quoted, that there is a positive relationship between a reduction in the amount of lead in petrol and the subsequent lowering by a large and significant amount of lead in the human body.
Some people have said that the Bill is desirable on health grounds but that we simply cannot afford it. The trouble is that as there is no clear legislation on the subject


the vested interests that oppose this move will inevitably exaggerate the cost as part of their argument and as a means of putting pressure on the Government. That was clearly demonstrated in Australia, where the oil industry said that it would cost a vast amount of money to go in this direction. However, after the Australian Government took positive action, the oil industry's estimates came down significantly. The latest estimate is that the cost of taking this step is one-fifth of the Australian oil industry's original estimate.
This must be the only area of human endeavour where financial estimates go down under the pressure of Government legislation. The most realistic view is that if we were to take this step, the extra cost to the motorist would be between 2p and 4p a gallon. Although such an increase is not desirable, it is fully justified by what is at stake and is pretty small compared with the 9p increase announced in the last 10 days.
There is also the argument about the motor industry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to come to a conclusion, because his 10 minutes are up?

Mr. Dubs: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall rapidly draw my remarks to a conclusion.
There are those who argue that the motor industry cannot cope. We already export cars to the United States that are designed not to run on petrol containing lead, and in any case Japan has already taken this step. Those who believe that we cannot take the step because of the EEC should look at article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, which talks about the protection of the health and life of humans as overriding EEC regulations.
If we regard the health and welfare of our children as paramount, there is no alternative to taking the measures that I ask the House to give me leave to introduce.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Ted Graham, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Allan Roberts and Mr. George Foulkes.

LEAD-FREE PETROL

Mr. Alfred Dubs accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the compulsory sale of lead-free petrol by filling stations; and to ensure that all new petrol-using vehicles sold in the United Kingdom shall be designed to run on lead-free fuel: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

[IST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 16 June]

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 3

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION BY ASSEMBLY PENDING GENERAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You will recall that when the Committee last sat it dealt with the first of a group of three amendments. It was put to the Chair, reported in column 1025 of the Official Report, that a Division would be desirable upon the other two amendments that were grouped with it as they were essentially separate matters on which it might be desirable for the Committee—and some members of the Committee did desire—to mark a decision.
I therefore ask you, Sir, to permit the Committee to come to a decision on amendment No. 44, which is on a distinct and important point, and for which a separate Division was requested when that group of amendments was entered upon.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It is perfectly true that when we debated this matter last week I said that the Chair would consider a Division on amendment No. 44. However, in view of the subsequent guillotine motion, I thought that it might be the desire of the Committee to get on with discussing the Bill. Therefore, I did not have that amendment put on the provisional selection. If it is genuinely the wish of the Committee to have a Division on this amendment, I shall, of course, allow it, despite the guillotine motion.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am obliged, Mr. Weatherill. That was indeed the desire of a number of members of the Committee on that occasion, and I hope that you will test that desire by putting the Question.

Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 132.

Divison No. 232]
[4.10 pm


AYES


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Budgen, Nick
Murphy, Christopher


Dunlop, John
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Farr, John
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Kilfedder, James A.
Winterton, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Jill



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Ross and


Molyneaux, James
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.






NOES


Alton, David
Macfarlane, Neil


Arnold, Tom
MacGregor, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Major, John


Beith, A. J.
Marland, Paul


Berry, Hon Anthony
Marlow, Antony


Best, Keith
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mather, Carol


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Blackburn, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Moate, Roger


Bradley, Tom
Montgomery, Fergus


Bright, Graham
Moore, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Mudd, David


Buck, Antony
Neale, Gerrard


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Needham, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
O'Halloran, Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R' c 'n)
Onslow, Cranley


Cartwright, John
Osborn, John


Chapman, Sydney
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Cope, John
Patten, John (Oxford)


Costain, Sir Albert
Pawsey, James


Crouch, David
Penhaligon, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Pitt, William Henry


Dover, Denshore
Pollock, Alexander


Dunn, James A.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Durant, Tony
Prior, Rt Hon James


Eggar, Tim
Rhodes James, Robert


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Roper, John


Fry, Peter
Rossi, Hugh


Goodlad, Alastair
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Grant, John (Islington C)
Sandelson, Neville


Greenway, Harry
Scott, Nicholas


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Grist, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Silvester, Fred


Hamilton, Hon A.
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Smith, Dudley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Haselhurst, Alan
Speller, Tony


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Stainton, Keith


Hawksley, Warren
Steel, Rt Hon David


Heddle, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hill, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Thompson, Donald


Hordern, Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Trippier, David


Howells, Geraint
Trotter, Neville


Hunt, David (Wirral)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Jessel, Toby
Waller, Gary


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Watson, John


Knox, David
Wellbeloved, James


Lang, Ian
Wells, Bowen


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lee, John
Wickenden, Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wigley, Dafydd


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Wolfson, Mark


Loveridge, John



Luce, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Lyell, Nicholas
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Mr. Peter Brooke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. John Farr: I beg to move amendment No. 151, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 152, in page 3, line 31, leave out from 'section' to end of line 33.
Amendment No. 148, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'a specified period' and insert
'one month of the request being made'.
Amendment No. 138, in page 3, line 33, after 'period', insert
'and such report for the greater convenience shall be in the form of the Official Record of proceedings.'.
Amendment No. 139, in page 3, line 33, after 'period', insert
'and in any event within 4 weeks of the conclusion of the relevant Assembly discussion.'.
Amendment No. 140, in page 3, line 35, after 'section' insert
'and shall do so at once by placing copies in the Vote Office.'.
Amendment No. 155, in page 3, line 35, at end insert 'within seven days'.
Amendment No. 156, in page 3, line 38, at end add—
'(6) The Assembly shall ensure that its proceedings and its decisions are recorded in writing and a copy of the proceedings is submitted to the Secretary of State.'.
Amendment No. 157, in page 3, line 38, at end add—
'(6) The Secretary of State shall place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the Assembly.'.
New Clause 24—Television—
'The proceedings of the Assembly shall be televised for transmission by the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television companies.'.

Mr. Farr: Will it be possible, Mr. Weatherill, to have a separate Division on amendment No. 139, which covers a fundamental point? It relates to the time limit of four weeks within which a report must be submitted.

The Chairman: I should like to consider that without giving an answer at the moment.

Mr. Farr: In the group of amendments which we are discussing, there are four with which I should like to deal—Nos. 151, 138, 139 and 140. This group of amendments gives the lie to the criticisms made yesterday that a series of time-wasting and destructive amendments without substance had been tabled. These nine amendments are all designed to make the Assembly a better, more effective and more efficient working place than it would otherwise be.
Amendment No. 151, the first one in the name of some of my hon. Friends and myself, relates to the desirability of changing the word "may" to "shall" in the first line of subsection (3). It is essential that the Assembly shall have a duty to make a report to the Secretary of State. It is not good enough to leave the subsection in its present rather haphazard form under which the Assembly may make a report or it may not. Amendment No. 151, along with the other three amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends, suggests that the best way of making the official report to the Minister by the Assembly is by keeping an official record similar to Hansard in the House of Commons.
This is outlined specifically in amendment No. 138 which says that an official record of proceedings shall be kept. As I said, all these amendments are designed to be helpful and to streamline the procedure. They are constructive and in no way can they be construed as time-wasting.
The Assembly officers would be well advised to try to emulate the feats of our Official Reporters in the Gallery. The accuracy, speed, efficiency and exactitude of our official reporters in the Hansard Gallery, working often in difficult conditions, are such as reporters of any official


proceedings throughout the world would wish to emulate. Those of us who tabled the amendments can think of no better way of going about it than for the Assembly officers to try to establish an official record of proceedings on the lines of our Hansard records.
Amendment No. 139 is of significance inasmuch as it desires to maintain the relevance of any report by the Assembly to the Secretary of State. If my right hon. Friend accepts some of the amendments—he has not been very co-operative so far—it will not be necessary to have this four-week time limit. An official report, as compiled by Hansard here, comes out overnight; the official report of proceedings in the Assembly could be made available to the Secretary of State overnight.
On the other hand, if my right hon. Friend does not feel inclined to accept amendment No. 138, which suggests that an official report should he kept, then it is strongly desirable that reports of proceedings should be up to date. It is no good an Assembly report being prepared, then delayed perhaps for one reason or another and not coming to the Secretary of State for an indeterminate time.
Many of the matters which the Assembly will be discussing, as outlined in clause 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b), will be of considerable gravity and importance. There is no reason why a four-week deadline could not be put into the Bill, assuming that the Secretary of State does not accept the amendment about having an official report, so that the reports of the Assembly are not withheld indefinitely for a known or unknown reason.
Amendment No. 140 relates to the placing in the Vote Office of the House of Commons of copies of the proceedings in the Assembly. I hope my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are listening occasionally because so much destructive criticism has come from the Front Bench to the effect that the amendments are all time-wasting and designed to wreck the Bill.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Where are the hon. Member's Friends this afternoon? There are not too many here.

Mr. Farr: These amendments are designed to improve the working and the machinery of the Assembly and to make sure that reports are produced rapidly and made readily available to Members of the House. The House of Commons is supreme in these matters. The best and recognised channel for making reports available to all Members of Parliament on both sides of the House is via the Vote Office. We can see no reason why, first, an official report such as Hansard cannot be kept by the Assembly, and, secondly, why that report cannot be made available at the earliest opportunity in the Vote Office to Members of Parliament who are interested, so that they will know where to go in the same way as they go there for all other important documents.
The Vote Office has been specified for another reason. A few weeks ago we were seeking from the Secretary of State notes on the proceedings of the Bill in Committee. We had the greatest difficulty in getting the notes. When they came they were helpful. They were voluminous. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was not to be seen during the week; I am glad to see him now.
We had a frightfully difficult job getting the notes. They were not available in the Vote Office and there was only one copy in the Library. I photocopied them, but as

they totalled more than 50 pages it was a laborious and time-consuming job. A much more efficient and effective way of informing hon. Members about the critical proceedings of the Assembly would be to put documentation in our Vote Office.

Mr. J. Grimond: I do riot oppose the amendments, which raise a number of matters that have concerned me previously about the nature of the Assembly.
As the Assembly will be in charge of its own procedures, I thought that it would have powers to keep a record if it desires. I am surprised that it should be considered necessary to write such a provision in the Bill. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will clear up that matter.
If a record is kept by the Assembly it should be available to hon. Members. We keep the proceedings of all sorts of subordinate bodies and I should not have thought that it was necessary to write such a provision into the Bill. Once again, I should like the Government to confirm whether it is necessary.
The main question is whether the Assembly will be compelled to report its views to the Secretary of State or will merely be given the power to report if it so wishes. Leaving the decision to the Assembly should be reasonably satisfactory, and nothing that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said convinced me that it should be compelled to report to the House. It should be for the Assembly to decide whether views are worth reporting to the House.
The hon. Member for Harborough seems to think that the Assembly will not have powers over its own proceedings unless we give it specific authority to record them and report them to the House or the Secretary of State. The Bill would not prevent the reporting and recording of proceedings and it would allow the Assembly to report to the Secretary of State any views that it wished to convey to him. So far, I have not been convinced that that is not reasonable.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I support some, if not all, of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan), and there are three amendments in the group in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body).
Clause 3 deals with the pre-devolution Assembly. The title of the Clause is:
Matters for consideration by Assembly pending general suspension of direct rule.
Much of the work of the Assembly during that period will be debates in which Members will air their views about Northern Ireland matters. The Secretary of State and this House should know the feelings of the Assembly and I support amendment No. 151, which would require the Assembly to report to the Secretary of State views expressed on any matter that it had considered and rot just the views on matters on which the Secretary of State had asked for its opinion.
My amendments Nos. 155 to 157 go a little wider than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. No. 155 applies to subsection (4), which states:
The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any report received by him under this section".
My amendment proposes that a seven-day time limit should be placed on the Secretary of State in the exercise


of that function. Other time limits are proposed by other amendments, but I believe that one week should be sufficient for the Secretary of State to make the necessary arrangements for a report to be laid before the House. Barring administrative and technical difficulties, there should be no delay before the House is informed of the views of the Assembly.
There are no provisions in the clause to enable the Assembly to record its proceedings and decisions and no duty is imposed on it to pass a copy of its proceedings to the Secretary of State. There may be occasions when the Assembly would rather that the House and the Secretary of State did not know its views, but we and my right hon. Friend should know all about the proceedings and the decisions taken by the Assembly.
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, the Assembly's Standing Orders may allow it to agree the manner in which it will record its proceedings, but that will be no substitute for imposing duties on the Assembly to report its proceedings and to ensure that the Secretary of State knows what decisions are being taken. I ask the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to reflect on that.
Amendment No. 157 would ensure that a copy of the minutes of the Assembly's proceedings—not merely a record of the proceedings on matters referred to the Assembly by the Secretary of State—was placed in the Library of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough suggested that the minutes could be placed in the Vote Office and I look forward to hearing the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on this group of amendments, which are intended to close substantial gaps in clause 3.
The amendments are varied. They are almost a step-by-step approach to improving clause 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made caustic comments about the briefing notes and their availability. I was principally responsible for asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he would make the briefing notes available at a very early stage in our proceedings, in fact, on the first day of our Committee proceedings. I have to acquit the Secretary of State of any discourtesy. My right hon. Friend was swift to respond to my suggestion that the briefing notes should be made available. He made it clear at the time that they would be available on request to his Department. I have to say that the briefing notes were promptly supplied to me. I believe that the criticism by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough of the Secretary of State and Ministers is, on this occasion, misplaced.

Mr. Farr: I should like to point out to my hon. Friend that I am not part of the gang of people who are alleged to have it in for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I was not criticising my right hon. Friend. I was merely suggesting that the best means of making the notes available was through the Vote Office, which is the normal procedure.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I acquit him, of course, of any blanket condemnation of the Secretary of State. My remarks are strictly related to the briefing notes on the Bill. The notes are not normally made available by Ministers at the Committee stage. It was because of my experience on the Standing Committee on the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, where such notes

had proved useful, that I thought they would be useful to hon. Members considering this Bill. I believe that, as our debates have progressed, the notes have turned out to be very useful indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned criticism of the Secretary of State on a personal basis or on a basis other than that related to the subject before the Committee. I fully supported my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on employment matters and on the step-by-step approach that has been followed through by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Employment.
There is, however, a clear disagreement within the Tory Party over the best approach to the problems of Northern Ireland. There are those who profoundly disagree with the establishment of this Assembly. They wish that some other approach had been adopted to tackle the many problems of Northern Ireland rather than saddle it with an unnecessary Assembly that will come to naught and will create many more problems than it will solve.

Mr. William Ross: A considerable number of amendments in the present group cover a small but important point related to the manner in which the Assembly is to conduct its business and make known the results of its deliberations to the world at large. The amendments standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself are simple and straightforward. They have been expanded by amendments tabled by other hon. Members. We simply ask that the Assembly shall report to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament on any matter that it considers.
4.45 pm
Amendment No. 156, in the name of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), goes further. The hon. Gentleman seeks what I also consider is essential—a permanent, full record of the proceedings of the Assembly, as well as reports, to be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State.
In amendment No. 157, the hon. Members for Basildon and Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) are asking that the record should be kept in the Library, like the records of the former Northern Ireland Parliament, where they can be consulted at any time. Under subsection (3), as it stands, it seems that no action need be taken by the Assembly other than to debate the matters put before it. In other words, the Assembly is expected to be powerless not only in action but after it has spoken. It simply speaks words that fade away in the Chamber and that is the end of them.
I believe that we must write it into the Bill that a proper record be kept and a proper report made of the Assembly's proceedings. There can be no doubt that the Assembly will discuss anything under the sun that it considers necessary. A permanent written or printed record of the proceedings should be kept and made available to the news media generally, the public, the Secretary of State, the House of Commons and Members of the Assembly.
The Assembly may not fulfil any useful role in its preliminary stages—I believe that it will never get beyond that preliminary stage—but if its views are not to be put to the Secretary of State in a sensible and reasoned fashion, its whole existence is useless. It will be even less than a powerless talking shop. If the amendments are not accepted, how are the conclusions of the Assembly to be put to the House and to the other place? How will they be conveyed to the Secretary of State? Will there be an


equivalent of Hansard for the Assembly? Will hon. Members be expected to wade through every dot and comma, cough and bark to discover the result of the Assembly's deliberations? Hansard itself is not all that accurate, even in this place. That was demonstrated only yesterday evening in the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who, in column 204, is reported twice in the same paragragh as referring to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he was quite evidently looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and the whole context of what he was saying referred to my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State will no doubt take steps to have the record corrected. Unless the Members of the Assembly are given the same facilities as exist in this place to correct mistakes in Hansard, I see no point in asking hon. Members to wade through the acres of printing which no doubt will come from the Assembly, as there will be nothing else for it to do.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I have just looked at column 204. It is clear that I was referring to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I shall certainly see whether the change can be made in the Official Report.

Mr. Ross: I thank the Secretary of State for taking up the point. However, it is not every day that we discuss previous business and have the responsible Ministers present on the succeeding day so that matters may be brought to their immediate attention and corrected. Therefore, it is necessary that amendments such as ours are accepted.

Mr. Proctor: Surely the interchange that has just taken place shows the need for the Assembly's proceedings to be set down in writing and for a duty to be placed upon the Assembly to set them down in writing, so that such corrections can be made. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the interchange has given added weight to the amendments standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends?

Mr. Ross: I thank the hon. Member for Basildon for his support. Certainly, the interchange that has just taken place illustrates, as no other argument on the Floor of the committee could, especially as it involved the right hon. Gentleman, the necessity for such changes in the Bill.
After the Assembly's views and conclusions have been decided and put down in Hansard, which is now to be written into the Bill, and brought to the House, what will happen? Will the decisions be binding? We covered some of this ground earlier, but there is no good reason to let the matter pass again without drawing it to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. If the Assembly reaches a consensus agreement, a majority agreement, or a unanimous agreement, what will happen when it comes to the House of Commons? This shows the foolishness of having a body which is without power and which can, at best, make recommendations. When that information comes here and reaches the hands of the Secretary of State, what will the Government do? How will the Assembly's conclusions and deliberations be put to the House? Will a number of resolutions be put down on the Order Paper? Will those resolutions embody the Assembly's conclusions? Will the right hon. Gentleman, or his successor,

stand at the Dispatch Box and ask the House to pass or reject the conclusions reached by the Assembly? What will be the procedure?
It is ridiculous to ask Members of the Assembly to spend hours considering matters, which may be of great importance, and then quietly to forget the conclusions that are taken by those who live close to the people involved. That raises the problem of the colour of the majority who arrive at conclusions in the Assembly and how it affects the subjective view of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. How can he judge whether there is widespread support or—as the Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) corrected my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) the other day—acquiescence? I think that was the word he used. The Secretary of State could give much greater weight to that word if he used it instead of "widespread acceptance", "cross-community support", or all the other nonsense that he has used up to now. "Acquiescence" is an acceptable word to the Under-Secretary, but in my mind it does not mean quite the same as those other terms.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Gentleman is quoting me in a quite different context. I had a semantic debate with the right hon. Member for Down, South, (Mr. Powell), when he kindly gave way to me, as to whether people in the Province accepted or acquiesced in direct rule.

Mr. Ross: This matter could be discussed in greater depth before the debate is concluded. To be consistent, the same attitude could be held throughout this whole matter.
If no full and accurate record of the votes, such as is kept in our own Official Report, is available to the Secretary of State, he will have no way of knowing the complexion of votes in the Assembly. Unless he knows, he has no way of reaching a conclusion. Therefore, there must be a permanent, accurate and detailed record of all that is said and done within the walls of the new Chamber.
My final point relates to new clause 24—the idea of allowing television into the Assembly. I have consistently voted against that idea in the House of Commons. However, I am not so sure that I would vote against it in the Assembly. If people could see their elected representatives in action, they might change their views, and change them considerably. We all know what happens now. The gentlemen of the press, who are present in all Assemblies of elected representatives, tend to pick the most spectacular and newsworthy items—the most outrageous statements. If all the world could see what was going on, people would see those who really do the work.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps fortunate that we do not have television to reveal to the world the fact that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), who tabled the new clause, is not even here to defend it?

Mr. Ross: I know the view that my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South takes on these matters, but I do not want to be too hard on the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), who has been most helpful to date in these matters. He has exposed many of the weaknesses and much of the foolishness in the Bill. The fact that the Secretary of State does not yet wish to acknowledge those weaknesses and that foolishness is unfortunate, but I have no doubt that, in the fullness of


time, he will understand that the criticisms voiced about the Bill are well founded. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is going down a path which will cause much damage and sorrow in Ulster.
As the hon. Member for Basildon said earlier, we are dealing with the pre-devolution stage. The question of a permanent record, reports, and so forth, will arise. If we are proved wrong—which is unlikely—and the Assembly moves to full devolution, what will the procedures then be for keeping a permanent record?
At that point, it is believed that the Assembly will talk only about those matters that have been devolved. However, if the Secretary of State is of that view, he is labouring under a grave misapprehension. The people of Northern Ireland will not be satisfied with a system which will, for instance, deny them the right to discuss security. No doubt, they will wish to make their views known and the Secretary of State will wish to hear them.

5 pm

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is putting the case forcefully, and rightly so, that the proceedings of the Assembly should be recorded. That there are amendments to this effect shows that those hon. Members who tabled them believe that this is not one of the procedures that the Assembly is permitted to organise for itself. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that some of the former Hansard writers at Stormont have already been asked whether they might be interested in returning to carry out that function for the new Assembly?

Mr. Ross: That is a most interesting piece of news. No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us precisely what other steps he has taken for the reopening of Parliament. If he is taking steps in one direction, he must be taking steps in many other directions. We look forward with great interest to the detailed statement that the Secretary of State will no doubt shortly make.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Under the guise of amendments which are superficially little more than procedural, some substantial and difficult points are raised regarding the Assembly.
The Committee is waiting with some eagerness to know whether it will receive advice on the amendments from the official Opposition or whether their sturdy custom of non-participation in the debates on the Bill is to be continued even into these declining and truncated stages.
The intervention of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—I regret that he has, perhaps temporarily, left the Chamber—was very much to the point. He inquired whether such matters as might be covered by the arrangements and Standing Orders of an Assembly were not proper to be left to the Assembly; indeed, whether it was not implicit in the nature of such an Assembly that it would decide itself what arrangements of this kind it would make.
If the right hon. Gentleman had allowed his eye to fall upon the page on which clause 4 appears, he would have seen that the Government have thought it necessary to secure in the Bill that certain arrangements shall be made by the Assembly. Had he pushed his researches further, into the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, he would have found a whole section—section 25—which sets out

the minimum provision for its procedure and proceedings which the Assembly is to make. One can assure the right hon. Gentleman, even in his absence, that there is nothing untoward, unprecedented or derogatory to the character of the proposed Assembly in the amendments.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and others, that we should have a ready means of access to any printed proceedings of the Assembly. He added that we were accustomed to receiving the proceedings of subordinate bodies.
I cudgelled my brains to recall what subordinate bodies the right hon. Gentleman had in mind. I am particularly at a loss in his absence. The only subordinate bodies that I can think of, the proceedings of which are accessible, but with great difficulty, and not necessarily always in our language, are those of the Council of Europe and European Assembly. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, who has not always been with the angels in such matters, regards the latter as a subordinate body. I do, where the sovereignty of the House is concerned. I hope that if he reads these proceedings he will let us know whether he is a recruit to the good old cause.
By that observation, the right hon. Gentleman raised the essential matter which is at issue in clause 12 and in the amendments. There is no analogy to the relationship that will subsist between the Assembly and the House. As far as I know, we do not receive the proceedings of the Estates of the Channel Islands, nor the proceedings and decisions of the House of Keys. However, those bodies debate and discuss matters for which the House is not responsible.
The essential fact about the Assembly in the period to which clause 3, by definition, refers, is that it will be debating matters for which the House is responsible and for which hon. Members elected to the House are responsible to their constituents. That puts the relationship of the Assembly and its proceedings to the House in an entirely new light, which fully justifies the amendments.
It would be worth the while of the Committee to look at the wording of clause 3(3) to which the amendments relate. It says:
The Assembly may report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly".
I pause at that point, because those are remarkable words. I am not so much concerned for the moment with the permissive "may". I shall come to the argument for amendment No. 151 in a moment. I am concerned with the expression:
the views expressed in the Assembly".
That is by no means accidental phraseology. It is remarkable phraseology.
When the House comes to a resolution, what emerges is not a report of the views expressed during the debate, but the view of the House. From the simplest to the grandest procedure in the House, the result issues on behalf of the House. No external body has any right to open up what happened in the course of our arriving at that decision or to pick and choose between one or another point of view. No judge sitting on the Bench, construing an Act of Parliament, is entitled to consider what the Conservative Party said on the one hand and what the Labour Party said on the other. He is concerned, not with the views expressed in the House or in Parliament, but with the decision.
We are here deliberately writing in as that which has to be reported to the Secretary of State if he requires it, and by him laid before the House, what is described as
the views expressed in the Assembly".
Surely there is some significance in the fact that it is not the Assembly's decisions that are given that prominence and treatment. There is no reference to the Assembly's decisions and no suggestion that they should be called for by the Secretary of State or placed before the House. If we receive all the views, we may, as a matter of grace, receive the decision as well. We might even receive the Division List and the results of the Division. I am glad that the Secretary of State is taking an interest in the drafting of the clause. It was not drafted in that way unintentionally. It is the views that are expressed in the Assembly that are to be brought to the Secretary of State's attention and to that of the House.
Who will do that? Who will report to the Secretary of State? Who will say that this or that view was expressed in the Assembly? In time gone by it was the custom for an exalted Minister, normally the Prime Minister, to sit on the Front Bench at about 5 pm or 6 pm, writing out for the Sovereign, in his best handwriting, what had been going on in the House. Later, a much more humble functionary, in the shape of the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, undertook that task. Her Majesty's Ministers are not merely entitled, but are duty bound, to convey exclusively to the Sovereign their view of opinion in the House.
Should that be the relationship between the Assembly and this House? Who will summarise the views that have been expressed? Will the President say that one party said one thing and that the other party's argument were not as strong? Will he say that this or that argument was put forward? Would it be satisfactory for the President to perform the function that used to be performed by Mr. Gladstone when he penned his missive to go down to Windsor? If we want to know the views expressed in the Assembly, there is only one way to secure them legitimately.
We must be able to know all the views that have been expressed and be able to arrive at our own opinions. The Secretary of State, along with the rest of us, must be able to decide the weight and importance to be attached to the respective views. Therefore, it would be unsatisfactory, in any case, for the subsection to remain in its present form. Whoever intends to report—"report" is the word—the views expressed in the Assembly, the concept remains unsatisfactory. It is right that those who have tabled the amendments should demand to know in what form the views that have been expressed are to be made available to us and to anyone else. There is only one proper way of making them available, and we should ensure that they are made available in that way. There must be a full record of what has been said in the Assembly. In that case, there should be no "may" about it. There should be no picking and choosing. No one should say that one debate was important, while another was not, or that the Secretary of State asked to have this debate, but that the other debate was held on our own initiative and so there will be no report of it.
If we are to set up an Assembly which will in some ways duplicate the functions of the House, by enabling elected persons to express views on a range of matters—the Secretary of State has properly accepted an amendment and enlarged that range—for which the House

is responsible, and be responsible to the people of Northern Ireland, the House must have a record of what the Assembly has done, said, thought and decided. If we are left with a catch-as-catch-can, hearsay method of finding out, the situation will be intolerable. Perhaps we shall have to look up the News Letter and the Belfast Telegraph to see whether we can glean from their columns what went on.
5.15 pm
The Government cannot possibly leave the subsection as it is. Whatever view they may take about the amendments, they must tidy up the provision before they can expect the House to deal with the Bill on Report. It will be unsatisfactory to have an indeterminate gap between what is done in the Assembly and making knowledge of that available to the Secretary of State and the House. I can imagine many circumstances in which the House might not need to debate—perhaps for months—a matter that has been debated in the Assembly. That could easily happen. However, I can equally envisage circumstances in which an important matter, with tension at its maximum, is debated in the Assembly and is then debated in the House, not a week or two later, but shortly or immediately afterwards.
Having established the concurrent representation of the people of Northern Ireland it would be intolerable if the House did not insist on the views expressed in it, the conclusions reached and how those conclusions were reached, being made known to the House. Several major changes need to be made to the subsection. It needs to be precise, instead of vague; mandatory, instead of permissive; and it should have an urgency and a time limit written into it. The time limit and the urgency should exist anyway, and not just if the Secretary of State thinks that it should be written into the Bill.
I should mislead you, Mr. Dean, if I were to suggest that the improvement of the subsection and the possible easing of the relationship between the House and the putative Assembly, if the improvements adumbrated by the amendments are accepted, will bring an end to the conundrum of dual representation of the same electorate on the same subjects. That is the nature of the monstrosity of the Assembly. Those of us who oppose the Assembly in this form do so not because we do not wish the people of the Province to have an elective voice. Indeed, it was principally due to the initiative of my hon. Friends that the people of the Province are to have an elected voice in this House on a par with the other parts of the United Kingdom.
It is not that we do not wish the electorate to have an elective voice in those matters which the House decides should be dealt with elsewhere. If the House decides—by Order in Council under the Bill, or otherwise—that certain matters should be removed from it and entrusted to other hands, that is all well and good. We shall all know where our respective responsibilities lie. However, the subsection creates an overlap, not of responsibility, but of representation.
Responsibility will remain exclusively vested in the House and will be seen to be vested in those hon. Members who are elected to the House by Northern Ireland constituencies. However, representation will be seen, particularly in the Province, to be vested in an Assembly that has no responsibility. Again I should mislead you, Mr.


Dean, and the Committee if I were to pretend to think that any amendments, even on Report, would remove that particular inherent vice.
I agree that that is no excuse for our not remedying what can be remedied within the ambit of the Bill. Because I think that a limited remedy can be applied by the amendments, I hope that either they will be accepted by the Government or that we shall hear from the Government Front Bench that the principle and intention is accepted and that they will be met at a subsequent stage.

Mr. Clive Soley: We shall intervene when we think it appropriate. I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's argument with care. It is a reasonable argument, but why does he say that the provision should be made so much tighter, because the Assembly can report to the Secretary of State if it wishes? Why not leave that flexibility alone?

Mr. Powell: I am not only delighted, but flattered, that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) has been following the debate. It must have been difficult for him to follow preceding parts of the Committee stage, because it is not easy to concentrate when one knows that one is prevented from participating. It blunts one's interest in other contributions to know in advance that, as a matter of principle, one is not allowed to participate or comment. I welcome the hon. Member's liberation and intervention.
If we in the House take a decision on a matter on which views have been expressed and decisions arrived at in the Assembly, it should not be chance whether we can find out what those views were or what the decision was. We should know. Let there be no doubt that the people in the Province will expect us to know. They will expect us to be aware of what their representatives have said there, not only about everything referred by the Secretary of State, but generally. That is not an unreasonable expectation.

Mr. Soley: If a matter is not referred by the Secretary of State, it does not necessarily have to come back here.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman has not grasped that the Assembly will be able to debate and arrive at resolutions on a whole range of matters not referred to it by the Secretary of State. We are talking of matters on which this House, from time to time, will hold debates and come to decisions. It is not good enough that we should have to depend either upon the chance of that matter being referred to the Assembly by the Secretary of State or upon the chance of the Assembly saying "That was a good debate, let us send it to Westminster", for our knowledge of what went on there.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The Northern Ireland Assembly of 1973, upon which this Assembly is based, had its Official Report. It was difficult to obtain copies of it because of administrative difficulties, but it could be in the hands of hon. Members the following day. There was a proper procedure for that. Hon. Members knew what the views were and what the votes and resolutions were. I am puzzled by the clause.

Mr. Powell: I do not need to remind hon. Members of the difference between the 1973 Assembly, let alone the 1922 Parliament, and this Assembly in the stage to which the cause refers. The 1973 Assembly took responsibility for a range of matters. Its debates related to those matters.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The clause relates to views expressed. I assume that there will be an Official Report.

Mr. Powell: We should not take it for granted that we shall have an Official Report of an Assembly which has no powers or responsibilities. After all, hitherto Assemblies had responsibilities, in some cases far-reaching responsibilities, entrusted to them by this House. At this stage the Assembly would be correct to say that it is a talking shop and there only to debate. It would be justified in deciding that it did not require a procès-verbal like an Assembly with responsibility attached to what is said and to its divisions.
I am not sure that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has attended to the construction of the subsection. Line 31 refers to "under this section," which imports the definition in clause 3(1) of non-devolution. We are dealing with the Assembly in its pre-devolutionary stage. We are dealing with an Assembly which the House has decided to permit to "consider any matter," including a reserved matter. There is a big difference, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept, between the former elected bodies, in themselves and in relation to this House, and the Assembly as it will be under the circumstances to which clause 3 relates.

Mr. Fitt: Yesterday afternoon, during the debate on the timetable motion, many doubts were expressed about the sincerity of hon. Members, mainly on the Government Benches, who had prolonged debates on the amendments. I am inclined to cast doubt again on their sincerity because they are not here this afternoon.
Yesterday, we heard vociferous protests about the timetable motion. Hon. Members argued that important amendments had to be discussed and that the Government were wrong to apply the timetable. I could be forgiven if I believed that the filibuster was still taking place, particularly in the speech by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and, to some extent, in the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). We do have important amendments to debate. Yesterday the right hon. Member for Down, South said that he had taken an interest in Northern Ireland affairs since 1972.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I did not say that.

Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Gentleman must have a short memory about what happened between 1972 and 1982. The right hon. Gentleman talked about what the Assembly would do, whether or not it had devolved powers. An Assembly was elected in June 1973. From then until the Executive was set up and took office in January 1974, it was a talking shop. There was a full press gallery. There were reports of every debate that took place between July and 1 January. There was no question of meetings being held in secret.
During that time, Assembly Members danced on the table in Stormont. Professor Kennedy Lindsay and members of the Democratic Unionist Party spat in the face of the late Brian Faulkner, the incoming Chief Executive. There were many other unrewarding scenes. If the television cameras had been there, we might have been able to decipher the dance by Professor Kennedy Lindsay. No secrecy was involved and the press was not kept out of the press gallery.
The hon. Member for Londonderry must have read the all-important subsection:


The Assembly may report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly on any matter considered by it under this section and shall do so if the Secretary of State so requests".
The protection is written into that subsection. The Secretary of State shall demand that the Assembly reports to him.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is this a filibuster?

Mr. Fitt: We have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman filibustering all afternoon.
Does anyone here believe that in the Assembly the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will make a speech lasting for one or two hours and then say "We shall keep it a secret"? Will the press not report it in the Belfast Telegraph and the News Letter the next morning? Will he say that he will not talk to journalists within the confines of Stormont? I have experience of that. The hon. Member for Antrim, North does not frequent some parts of Stormont that I might frequent, but I have often seen him in consultation with the doyens of the press there.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will recall that, when the Assembly was sitting, no sooner had a speech been made than the person who made it was outside hailing a taxi to take him to the studios of Ulster Television or the BBC to tell everyone what he had just said in the Assembly.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Is this a debate on the capacity of a Member to get publicity or on the accuracy of the reporting of the House?

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Paul Dean): The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is going rather wide, although I realise that he is probably still on his preamble. The amendment is fairly wide, but not as wide as he is now going.

Mr. Fitt: I was provoked by some of the claptrap that I have heard this afternoon. For example, the hon. Member for Londonderry queried a misprint in yesterday's Official Report when the Secretary of State obviously referred to a Member from a different constituency. I did exactly the same yesterday. I referred to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I understand now that I was mistaken.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman has been asking for accuracy. If one wishes to consider accuracy in the reporting of proceedings—

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I did not query the Secretary of State's statement. I queried the accurancy of the Hansard report. There was no query about the Secretary of State using the wrong constituency.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That point has been dealt with.

Mr. Fitt: I am convinced that this is another filibuster and that hon. Members are trying to involve me in it.
I remember a classic misprint in Hansard. In 1969 I referred to a speech made by the then Taoiseach of the Republic, Mr. Lynch, in Tralee. Lo and behold, in Hansard the next morning it was reported that a speech had been made by the tea shop in Tralee. I deliberately did

not use the 24 hours available to have it changed. One can check that in the Library. Since then, many people have got to know what the word Taoiseach means.

Mr. Proctor: At the outset of his remarks the hon. Gentleman said that there were important matters to be discussed, presumably in this group of amendments. The guillotine falls at 6.30 pm. If the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat now and there is a Ministerial response, there will still remain 11 amendments in this group and four further groups to be debated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind and consider whether he is indulging in a filibuster to stop us debating the detail of the other four groups of amendments.

Mr. Fitt: I was castigated roundly yesterday by many Conservative Members for not helping to perpetuate yesterday's filibuster. Now, having spoken for only five or 10 minutes, I am told that is too long. I have no intention of being dictated to by Conservative Members. That is the prerogative of the Chairman.
We are making heavy weather about nothing in this amendment.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fitt: I shall not give way. It has been rumoured that the right hon. Member for Down, South will he a Member of the Assembly. It has certainly been rumoured that the hon. Members for Londonderry, Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) will be contesting seats. One cannot question the veracity of those hon. Members. They will bring back reports to the House, whether there is an Official Report or not. One can depend upon the right hon. Member for Down, South, if and when he is elected to the Assembly, to present in the House his interpretation of the proceedings of the Assembly.
The subsection clearly gives the Secretary of State authority to demand the publication of any debates in the Assembly. With the experience of the Northern Ireland Parliament, the Assembly and the Constitutional Convention, no one in his right mind can possibly believe that restrictions will be placed by the major political parties on what happens within the confines of the Assembly.

Mr. John Patten: We have nine amendments and one new clause to consider. Bearing in mind the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), I shall deal with them as quickly as possible, but I do not wish to be discourteous to the Committee by skating over the detailed points that have been raised, and I do not intend to do so.
Clause 3 provides for the Assembly's functions pending full devolution. It is important to keep that firmly in mind. The Assembly will be empowered to discuss a wide range of matters, either of its own volition or those referred to it by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his successors. Subsection (3) enables the Assembly to report its views on any matter to the Secretary of State and obliges it to do so should there be a request. Subsection (4) provides that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any report that he receives from the Assembly under clause 3.
I listened with great care to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan). He and I differ on our basic and underlying philosophy for the


workings of the Assembly. The Government believe that we should provide a basic framework for the Assembly, after which the Assembly should, in a grown-up way, decide in detail how it will work out its future within those guidelines. That is very much in keeping with our general philosophy of allowing locally elected representatives the greatest possible freedom over their procedures. That philosophy underlies clause 3 and is the import of it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend conceive of the possibility that the Assembly will not have an official verbatim record and that we must rely on those methods to extract the Assembly's views?

Mr. Patten: I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) to wait until a later section of my speech, when I shall deal fully with that issue. My hon. Friend is ahead of me.
Consideration of the amendments falls, in my view, into at least four separate parts. First, I direct the Committee's attention to amendment No. 152. If the amendment were carried, the power of the Secretary of State to require the Assembly to submit a particular report to him would be removed. We believe it sensible that the Government should be able to take the initiative and to ask for advice on both transferred and reserved matters by calling for the Assembly's views on a specific topic. This fits in well with the scrutinising and deliberative and consultative functions which it is intended that the Assembly should have from the first happy day when it meets.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that the Minister understands that amendments Nos. 151 and 152 hang together. It was not the intention to eliminate the mandatory part of the clause without making the clause itself mandatory.

Mr. Patten: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, the right hon. Gentleman is slightly ahead of me. I was about to come to amendment No. 151, which is one of a group of amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough and Basildon, together with amendment No. 148, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), whom I do not see in the Chamber. These amendments together seek to tighten the procedure by which the Assembly reports to the Secretary of State and then to Parliament. Amendment No. 151, which stands in the names of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and Londonderry (Mr. Ross), would ensure that the Secretary of State automatically received reports from the Assembly on every matter that it had discussed under clause 3.
The Government believe that that would be an unnecessary provision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already empowered under clause 3(3) to receive such reports as he wishes. Moreover, it is surely right that the Assembly, which will be an independent elected body in the way in which it conducts its affairs within the terms of the Bill, should not be obliged to report to the Government on topics that it chooses to consider.

Mr. Proctor: Is what my hon. Friend has said a rather convoluted way of giving the Committee an assurance that

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will request from the Assembly every report that is discussed by it and will request a copy of the proceedings each and every time it sits?

Mr. Patten: My aim is not to be convoluted. I was not suggesting what my hon. Friend has put in his question. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is already empowered under clause 3(3) to receive such reports as he wishes.
Amendments Nos. 148, 139 and 155 would impose a mandatory time limit for the submission of reports by the Assembly to the Secretary of State. Such time limits, whether one month or one week, are unnecessary for two reasons. I shall leave aside the question of what form the reports should take. I shall come to it subsequently in answering the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest.
5.45 pm
If the Assembly had to report on some especially contentious and difficult matter—it is clear to me that a number of the issues that the Assembly will have to consider will be contentious and difficult—a rigid statutory time limit could be counter-productive. We must give the Assembly adequate and sufficient time in which to consider the nature of the reports.
Secondly, it is important that any reports submitted by the Assembly reflect its considered views and are drawn up after mature consideration and not in any undue haste. Should it prove necessary, the Secretary of State can, under the existing provisions of the Bill, require a particular report to be submitted within a specified period. This period can be stipulated by my right hon. Friend and can be varied to suit particular circumstances.
I suggest that that facility is far more flexible than those that have been suggested in various amendments. That might give my right hon. and hon. Friends cause to consider whether they wish to pursue their amendments.

Mr. Proctor: Will my hon. Friend address himself to amendment No. 155, which deals with subsection (4) and the time limit between the Secretary of State receiving the report and laying it before Parliament? I have suggested that it should be seven days. Has my hon. Friend any observations to make on that amendment?

Mr. Patten: This is an issue on which my right hon. Friend will have to use his discretion and judgment. When, for example, a report from the Assembly concerns what we have grown to regard as a devolution package—I accept that that is not a felicitous phrase—it may include details that will have to go back for further consideration. In the pre-legislative phase, with which we are dealing by analogy, there may be a need for the Secretary of State to consider a report before laying it before Parliament. There is no need to specify seven days, two weeks or one month.
An issue that has excited considerable interest is the form in which the Assembly should report to the Secretary of State. It is an issue that has prompted the right hon. Member for Down, South to ask a number of specific questions.
As I understand it, amendment No. 138 proposes that reports should be in a Hansard-type format, while amendment No. 156 seeks to ensure merely that the Assembly records its proceedings and decisions in writing and that a copy of the record is automatically submitted to the Secretary of State. The current provisions in the Bill


are designed to supply a basic framework within which the Assembly can operate and decide to operate. The Government believe that the Assembly itself, in the first important weeks and months of its life, should be left to determine the form of its reports. Clearly it will be preferable if the reports reflect the range of opinions expressed in the Assembly and do not exclude minority views. However, this is a matter for the Assembly to decide and is not one for the House of Commons.
In 1973 and 1974 the Northern Ireland Assembly decided to keep a verbatim record of its plenary sessions both before and after devolution. I suggest that there is no reason to suspect, perhaps for the reasons to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has alluded, that the Assembly will not follow that precedent. Indeed, in 1973 and 1974, the Assembly followed many precedents of the Northern Ireland Parliament before it. I do not see why the Assembly should attempt to depart from this well-established precedent.
These are matters that are properly for the Assembly to determine, as is the question of who should draw up the report. Should it be drawn up by the Presiding Officer or should it be done by a committee of the Assembly? We do not believe that the Government should attempt to lay down rigid details within the framework of the Bill. As I have said, these are matters for the Assembly to decide.
I shall endeavour to correct the memory of the right hon. Member for Down, South on what went on during the 1973–74 Assembly. I believe that the Assembly produced Official Reports of its proceedings only for matters for which it had legislative responsibilities. Legislative responsibilities were not devolved until 1 January 1974. However, before then, while the Assembly was, by analogy, in its pre-legislative discursive phase—for example when it was drawing up rules of procedure, deciding who should preside and debating general matters—it produced daily verbatim reports.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the expression "proceedings in the Assembly" occurs also in clause 5(3), where it is in an important constitutional and legal context. Do the Government regard it as satisfactory to leave it to the Assembly to decide what shall be the meaning and the effective content of a report of what happens in the Assembly? After all, the reversal of devolution will be triggered in some cases. That surely cannot be a matter which the Government think should be left to the discretion of the Assembly.

Mr. Patten: At some time between 6.30 pm and 9 pm I hope that we shall have a chance to discuss in greater detail matters connected with clause 5. I shall not attempt to pre-empt that debate and the important point that the right hon. Gentleman has made.
It would be wrong for us to lay down in detail any specific forms to be followed. In addition, amendment No. 156, like amendment No. 151, would appear to require the Assembly to send the Secretary of State copies of its proceedings. I have already said that we believe it to be unnecessary, and perhaps even offensive to the Assembly, which is, after all, an independent elected body—or it will be, should the Bill become law—and not the creature of the Secretary of State, to require that body to send reports.

Mr. Proctor: rose—

Mr. Patten: I have given way twice to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way this time.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), with his usual clarity married to brevity, raised a number of points, all of which I have dealt with in my discussion of the amendments in the third part of my speech. I hope that the explanation that I have given of why we are doing what we are doing and, more importantly, why we desire to give maximum flexibility to the Assembly, is acceptable.
It would be otiose for me to do anything more than mention the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe, as he is not in the Chamber. It would be wrong to impose upon the Assembly the requirement that its proceedings be televised. At a later stage, should the Assembly wish to have its proceedings televised, videoed, or made known to the people of the Province in any other form that it sees fit, for their greater information, it will have the right to do so after due consideration. However, any decisions should await that consideration.

Mr. John Dunlop: In view of the graphic description by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) of some of the things that happened in the 1974 Convention, it is a thousand pities that we do not have a video record of some of the proceedings in that Assembly. It would be illuminating to see the self-satisfied smirk on the faces of Front Bench Members when they were constantly telling us that the Assembly was the vehicle that would soon trundle Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland Republic. There should have been a recording of the expression on the faces of that ill-assorted gang, some of whom should not have been there at all, because they were not elected. It is a pity that we do not have a video account of those proceedings.

Mr. Patten: I am glad, as always, that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road of passing value judgments on the behaviour of politicians in that Assembly, of which I was not a member. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland, like the people of the United Kingdom with regard to the House of Commons, would expect Members of the Assembly to behave in a due and meet fashion.
Amendments Nos. 140 and 157 seek to have copies of the Assembly's reports placed in the Vote Office or the Library. It would not be suitable to do that before the report is formally laid before Parliament, but, of course, Assembly reports will be laid as soon as possible—I hope that this answers some of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon—after they are received from the Assembly, and once laid the Government will, as usual, be ready to meet the requests of hon. Members on such matters.
I am of course aware that, taken together, the groups of amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough and Basildon respectively would considerably tighten parliamentary monitoring of the Assembly's proceedings. I have already suggested to the Committee why each should be rejected on its individual merits. The Government's view is that the Assembly must be given the maximum flexibility and freedom for the conduct of its affairs. To sum up, clause 3 combines flexibility with the appropriate parliamentary control of the Assembly's proceedings.

Mr. James Molyneaux: We have long recognised that the central weakness in the Assembly is that, for all practical purposes and for all time, it will have only the power to talk. That is a big enough weakness. We are now dealing with clause 3, which deals with the extended period when the Assembly will do nothing and will have no power to do anything other than talk. That is disastrous. Unlike other parties, we have not been impressed by the argument that the Members of the Assembly can earn their keep by talking, scrutinising and debating endlessly matters that it may or may not be within their powers to debate.
The second weakness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, lies in the method by which the reports of the proceedings will be submitted. Was it a slip of the tongue when the Minister said that the body that is being set up under the legislation will, for all practical purposes, be independent? He said that it would be an insult to that body to hedge it with restrictions and tell it what to do. He concluded that section of his remarks by saying that the Secretary of State, in view of that possible insult, could not require the Assembly to lay its reports before him. However, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to do so. He can ask for those powers. In fact, he can require them. That is laid down strongly in the wording of the clause. Therefore, was that a slip of the tongue?

Mr. John Patten: On the issue of independence, I was speaking, as I have throughout the Committee, within the terms of the Bill as it is written. I was referring to the independence of the Assembly, for example, to decide how to have its verbatim reports transcribed, who is to take them and in what circumstances, but that is within the control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, more importantly, of the House of Commons.

Mr. Molyneaux: With respect, that does not square with the words in clause 3(3), which states that the Assembly may report to the Secretary of State
and shall do so if the Secretary of State so requests".
Records and the recording of discussions fall into two stages. There would be the Hansard style of record of the proceedings, which would be provided for the light reading of hon. Members, if they had the spare time to engage in that occupation. That record would give the views, as opposed to the decisions and conclusions, of the Assembly. If the 1973 Assembly is anything to go by, it would give a full verbatim account of everything that was said and done, including sedentary interruptions. It would all be recorded in the peculiar way of the old Stormont Hansard, which had the effect of making even the best speeches unintelligible.
6 pm
I said there would be two stages, but there is a third stage that deals with what happens after the Assembly has surmounted the 70 per cent. weighted majority hurdle and the cross-community hurdle. It will never do that, so we need not worry about it.
The second stage relates to the resolutions and conclusions of the Assembly. That will be vital. The Minister stressed that the Secretary of State—having invited and obtained the Assembly's decision on some matter—will be bound by the Bill to lay that proposal before Parliament.
This is not a hypothetical matter. If the Assembly, after discussing some of the matters that are within its legitimate

province, came to the conclusion that it had no confidence in the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State read that in the News Letter, would he hasten to require the Presiding Officer to furnish him with a copy of the resolution, knowing that he had to table that resolution in the House? The White Paper suggests that he should give his view on such a conclusion. Will the Secretary of State—after all, he is bringing the Assembly into being—come to the House and say that he agrees with that conclusion and that the Assembly is right in expressing no confidence in him and his team of Ministers? I am sure that he would be reluctant to do that.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: That would be madness.

Mr. Molyneaux: The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) says that would be akin to madness. I agree with him.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) suggested that there was no great hurry for the conclusions of the Assembly to reach the House. He seemed to feel that they could be produced in a leisurely form and be made available to hon. Members later. A problem would arise if the Assembly came to a conclusion on some vital matter on the eve of a debate in the House of Commons. Will the Minister then say "This is the Government's view"? Will he give way to the intervention "Has the Minister not read the News Letter this morning giving the decision of the Assembly?" The Minister will have to reply "We have not yet received any account of what took place in the Assembly". If you were in the Chair, Mr. Dean, you would probably rule it out of order since the report would not have been received by the House of Commons. It is important that the decisions and resolutions of the Assembly should be made available immediately to the House, because the House has to carry the can for them.
The Assembly may talk, but the House of Commons is responsible to the people of the United Kingdom for the good government of Northern Ireland. The House of Commons has to take decisions. Therefore, it must have adequate, speedy knowledge of what has taken place in that body of 78 or 85—whatever it will be—freshly elected Members representing the people of Northern Ireland. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Presiding Officer and his staff—in the course of time he will collect a large staff—should not have the power to edit or summarise the views of the Assembly. Under the Bill the Presiding Officer has been given too much power of patronage. It would be regrettable if he were given the power to suggest that he was the best person to know the minds of the Members of the Assembly.
The Under-Secretary of State was not clear about the form that the reports would take. He said that the Government believe that it is the job of the Assembly to determine the nature of the report and then, by implication, to decide what goes into such a report. You will remember, Mr. Dean, that the Northern Ireland Convention was denounced, and its report rejected, because the report reflected the majority views of the elected Members. If the Government are now saying that they will accept the majority view of the Assembly and the Assembly comes to the conclusion that the report represents accurately its decisions and feelings, that is


good news to us and we welcome it. That ought to be spelt out very clearly. For that reason, we cannot accept the Minister's explanation.

Mr. Julian Amery: There is a difficulty here. If I understand the Bill correctly, the Secretary of State will remain responsible to the House of Commons for several aspects of the Assembly—for example, whether to devolve certain Departments or whether to refuse devolution. On what basis will the Secretary of State make up his mind? Will he have his own full transcript of the proceedings prepared by his officials? If he does, is there any reason why that report should not be made available to all hon. Members in the Library? We could be in danger of acting in the dark, as would the Minister, unless there was a full and accurate transcript of the proceedings.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 147.

Division No. 233]
[6.08 pm


AYES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Murphy, Christopher


Budgen, Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cryer, Bob
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dunlop, John
Skinner, Dennis


Farr, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John



Kilfedder, James A.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knight, Mrs Jill
Mr. K. Harvey-Proctor and


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Ross.


Molyneaux, James



NOES


Alton, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Arnold, Tom
Fry, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Greenway, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Blackburn, John
Hawksley, Warren


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hill, James


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bradley, Tom
Hordern, Peter


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Bright, Graham
Howells, Geraint


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butcher, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cartwright, John
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Cope, John
Lee, John


Costain, Sir Albert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Crouch, David
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Loveridge, John


Dover, Denshore
Luce, Richard


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lyell, Nicholas


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Eggar, Tim
Macfarlane, Neil


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacGregor, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Major, John


Fitt, Gerard
Marlow, Antony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)





Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Mather, Carol
Sandelson, Neville


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Scott, Nicholas


Mellor, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scar b')


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Silvester, Fred


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Sims, Roger


Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Dudley


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Moore, John
Speller, Tony


Mudd, David
Stainton, Keith


Myles, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Neale, Gerrard
Stevens, Martin


Needham, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Newton, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Donald


Osborn, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Trippier, David


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Penhaligon, David
Watson, John


Pitt, William Henry
Wellbeloved, James


Pollock, Alexander
Wells, Bowen


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wheeler, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wickenden, Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolfson, Mark


Ridsdale, Sir Julian



Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roper, John
Mr. Ian Lang and


Rossi, Hugh
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 135, in page 3, line 35, at end insert
'which relates to a transferred matter considered by the Assembly under subsection (1)(a) above or to a matter which has been referred to it under this section by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES IN RELATION TO DEPARTMENTS UNDER CONTROL OF SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 4, line 5, leave out from first 'chairman', to 'of' in line 6.
I am sorry that I do not discern the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) in the Chamber. The amendment and the reasoning upon it contain the answer to a question that he put during our debates yesterday afternoon—why, if such an Assembly as this came into existence, it would fall into the traps and would provide the basis which many of us believe that it is intended to provide for participation in all-Ireland institutions and thus pave the way for the transfer of Ulster from the United Kingdom to a United Ireland.
This will be an Assembly of 78 or 85 Members. The clause with which the amendment is concerned provides for the appointment of a committee to shadow each Department of the Government of Northern Ireland. Moreover, it provides for the appointment in each case of a deputy chairman or two deputy chairmen. I am willing to leave it to you, Mr. Dean, to guess whether the decision would be in favour of two deputy chairmen rather than one. When your eye fell on subsection (3), and had you


had any initial hesitation, your mind would have been made up when you realised that special remuneration will attach not only to the chairmen but to the deputy chairmen.
Let us suppose that there are eight Departments of Government. That makes eight chairmen and 16 deputy chairmen—24 salaried persons as a minimum, for it must be borne in mind—

Mr. John Patten: As a result of the successful passing of the Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) order two nights ago, there will be six Northern Ireland Departments.

Mr. Powell: But the hon. Gentleman is as conscious as I am that during our earlier time spent on the Bill, which some people argue we wasted, we ascertained the fact that it might be possible, and even desirable, to split some of the Departments. Should it come to the attention of the Assembly that by splitting the Departments the number of chairmanships and deputy chairmanships could be increased, that is not a matter that it would readily pass over.
I put the matter more generally by saying that between 20 and 25 Members of the Assembly, the membership of which is at present envisaged as 78—in other words, about one third of the Assembly—might be salaried. I am not referring to their salary as Members of the Assembly. They will get that in any case. I am referring to a special additional salary in consideration of their being chairmen, deputy chairmen or deputy deputy chairmen of the committees. The Bill also provides that there may be other committees than those which shadow the Departments of Government.
There is, therefore, at the outset an array of patronage. We in this House well understand the working of office. We understand not merely the susceptibility of Members to the duties of office—to their duties as confidential servants of the Crown—but also the influence on their minds that by taking certain courses rather than others and speaking in one way rather than another, the possibility of lucrative and honorific appointments might be increased.
I do not think that that would be absent from the minds of those persons of blameless reputation and integrity who might be elected to an Assembly such as this. At any rate there one has a start, at least on the business of securing a decision of the Assembly to send representation to an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier. One has made a beginning upon constituting, if not a majority, at any rate a substantial showing in favour of participation in that federal-type institution.
The clause refers to a time when the Assembly will not be exercising its devolved functions. As the shoulder title indicates, it relates to Departments still
under control of Secretary of State".
Therefore, the committees will not be responsible for Departments, or even responsible for watching Departments, for which the Assembly has taken responsibility. They will be committees responsible to the talking shop for watching Departments for which the Secretary of State is responsible to this House.

Mr. John Patten: rose—

Mr. Powell: I promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman if the exigencies of time permit.
In framing the amendment, my hon. Friends and I were in no ungenerous mood. We should consider the substantial salary that will be paid to Members of the Assembly, together with travelling allowances and other considerations in which we in this House have led the way. We have blazed a trail that others will no doubt follow. We might have come to the conclusion that it would be proper to expect not just the deputy or even the second deputy chairman to do whatever work there might be without extra remuneration, but that the chairman himself might regard the privilege of presiding over a committee examining the work of a Department of Government as something to be thrown in as part of the job. We did not take that restricted view and have been content to leave a special salary in the Bill.
Had time permitted, the Committee might have considered whether there should be some limitations upon those special salaries, such as an indication of the maxima and so on. We have been willing in principle to concede for the chairman, but not for the deputy chairmen or the deputy deputy chairmen.
I believe that the Minister wants to intervene. Perhaps he wants to wind up.

Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to wind up. I merely want to draw something to the Committee's attention. He spoke at great speed, and I shall attempt to speak just as quickly.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that in addition to the departmentally related committees that would have chairmen and vice-chairmen, the Assembly could also create other committees. That is perfectly correct. But as they do not have statutory responsibilities, it is extremely important to realise that the chairmen, vice-chairmen and officers of those committees cannot be paid. The Assembly cannot indulge in some sort of job creation exercise. Its proper role will be to ensure that the departmentally related committees do the hard and serious work of shadowing the work of those Departments.

Mr. Powell: It is a relief to know that although the committees and chairmanships can pullulate, there will not necessarily be a corresponding pullulation of salaries. I therefore restrict myself to the modest picture that I painted of about 20 or so Members out of an Assembly of 78 having an inducement greater than that of receiving the salary and other emoluments that their fellow Assembly Members will receive.
This House is fairly jealous of the ratio between the payroll and the non-payroll. Estimates of the payroll vary, and the payroll is not entirely made up of people who are paid. When the payroll vote comes in at 1 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning, we are accustomed to seeing not only those in receipt of salaries but those who are in expectation. That should also be borne in mind.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the figure that was scored in the recent Divisions?

Mr. Powell: About 130. I was proceeding to treat 130 as a fraction of 635. I was about to indicate that without any other considerations, inducements or pourboires that might be devised, the clause as it stands constitutes a payroll vote half as large again as the payroll vote that many of us consider to be dangerously excessive.

Mr. John Patten: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if, in the short time remaining to me, I attempt to answer some of the questions that were put at such speed.
I must make it clear at the outset that the Government are not able—

It being half-past Six o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [22 June] to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 146.

Division No. 234]
[6.30 pm


AYES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Murphy, Christopher


Budgen, Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cranborne, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Dunlop, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Farr, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Gorst, John



Knight, Mrs Jill
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Mr. William Ross.


Molyneaux, James



NOES


Alton, David
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Arnold, Tom
Hampson, Dr Keith


Aspinwall, Jack
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Hawksley, Warren


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Heddle, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Beith, A. J.
Hill, James


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Hordern, Peter


Berry, Hon Anthony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Howells, Geraint


Blackburn, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jessel, Toby


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Kilfedder, James A.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Lee, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Butcher, John
Loveridge, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Luce, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Cartwright, John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Chapman, Sydney
Macfarlane, Neil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Major, John


Cope, John
Marlow, Antony


Costain, Sir Albert
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Crouch, David
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Dorrell, Stephen
Mather, Carol


Dover, Denshore
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mellor, David


Dunn, James A.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Eggar, Tim
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Ellis Tom (Wrexham)
Miscampbell, Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)


Fitt, Gerard
Moate, Roger


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Fergus


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moore, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mudd, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Myles, David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Neale, Gerrard


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Needham, Richard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Newton, Tony


Hamilton, Hon A.
Onslow, Cranley





Osborn, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Speed, Keith


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Speller, Tony


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stainton, Keith


Pawsey, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Penhaligon, David
Stevens, Martin


Pitt, William Henry
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pollock, Alexander
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Donald


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhodes James, Robert
Trippier, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trotter, Neville


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Waller, Gary


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Watson, John


Roper, John
Wellbeloved, James


Rossi, Hugh
Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Sandelson, Neville
Wickenden, Keith


Scott, Nicholas
Wigley, Dafydd


Shaw Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Silvester, Fred
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. David Hunt and


Smith, Dudley
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Six o'clock.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 141, Noes 21.

Division No. 235]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Arnold, Tom
Gummer, John Selwyn


Aspinwall, Jack
Hamilton, Hon A.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Beith, A.J.
Heddle, John


Benyon Thomas (A'don)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Hill, James


Berry, Hon Anthony
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hordern, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howells, Geraint


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Jessel, Toby


Braine, Sir Bernard
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lang, Ian


Butcher, John
Lee, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Loveridge, John


Cartwright, John
Luce, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Lyell, Nicholas


Cope, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Costain, Sir Albert
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Crouch, David
Macfarlane, Neil


Dorrell, Stephen
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Dover, Denshore
Major, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dunn, James A.
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mather, Carol


Eggar, Tim
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mellor, David


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fitt, Gerard
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miscampbell, Norman


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger






Montgomery, Fergus
Silvester, Fred


Moore, John
Sims, Roger


Mudd, David
Smith, Dudley


Myles, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Neale, Gerrard
Speed, Keith


Needham, Richard
Speller, Tony


Newton, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Onslow, Cranley
Steel, Rt Hon David


Osborn, John
Stevens, Martin


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald


Penhaligon, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Pitt, William Henry
Trippier, David


Pollock, Alexander
Trotter, Neville


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Waller, Gary


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Watson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, Bowen


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Wheeler, John


Roper, John
Wickenden, Keith


Rossi, Hugh
Wigley, Dafydd


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



Sandelson, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Scott, Nicholas
Mr. David Hunt and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Peter Brooke


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Murphy, Christopher


Budgen, Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cranborne, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cryer, Bob
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Dunlop, John
Skinner, Dennis


Farr, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)



Kilfedder, James A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Knight, Mrs Jill
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Ross.


Molyneaux, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

DISSOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY AND REVOCATION OF ORDERS

Mr. James A. Dunn: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in page 4, line 24, after 'If', insert
'within three years from the coming into force of this Act.'

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 105, in page 4, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 31 and insert
'If no proposals have been submitted by the Assembly that could, in Her Majesty's opinion, lead to the making of an Order under section 2 above or, if any such Order is or has been revoked, to the making of a further Order under that section within twelve months of the commencement of any relevant proceedings in the Assembly, and it appears that'.
No. 104, in page 4, line 30, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

Mr. Dunn: I admit at the outset that the drafting of the amendment may be defective and that it might not achieve what we seek.
I said in an earlier debate that there was a danger that the Assembly could become a talking shop. From the evidence of previous debates on the Bill, some hon. Members would do admirably in a talking shop. If they were in the Assembly, I would be full of fear. I say that in good humour.
The hon. Members for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) expressed sharply their fear that if the Assembly had no useful work to do and there were structural difficulties it could end up as a body with no power or responsibility and as no more than a debating chamber. I do not share that view, because the Assembly would have considerable revision opportunities and wide scope for discussion and giving advice.
However, I am worried that a small group may attempt to thwart the wishes of the Assembly or a majority of Members may act in a dilatory fashion and make no reports or recommendations to the House or the Secretary of State. Therefore, in order to avoid returning to the fail-safe procedures in clause 5, we need to include a specified time limit in the Bill.
It may be said that a time limit is not necessary because the Secretary of State can revoke any order or a report or recommendation leading to an order, but even before an order is made the Assembly could act in such a dilatory fashion that, without a time limit, the Secretary of State would find it difficult to come to the House and say that the Assembly was not working as the Bill proposes that it should.
The Secretary of State and other Ministers have made it clear that the Assembly will not be required to make recommendations—it can make its own decisions in its own way—but it is not necessarily wise to leave the Assembly in a position where it would not do its job as an advisory body, but preferred to criticise Government Ministers, while having no responsibility for the outcome of those criticisms.
Whatever else may be the intention of those who support the Bill, I ask the House to agree that there should be some constraints. Those elected to the new Assembly should be told that they are not given carte blanche to do exactly as they wish. They have a responsibility to consider matters and to report to the House of Commons either through the Secretary of State or directly. They should be given a clear time scale indicating that, if they take too long, the patience of the House will run out.

7 pm

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), with his experience as a former Northern Ireland Minister, has spoken in a most agreeable manner. There is great force in his amendment. I am persuaded that I should support it even to the Division Lobby. I hope that my saying that will not discourage my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State from accepting the amendment, which accords exactly with the call of Ministers for constructive contributions and attempts to improve the Bill even if hon. Members do not agree with its purposes.
The hon. Member for Kirkdale may feel at ease over his remarks. I do not believe that, this time, the Social Democratic Party in this House will be pursuing a course at variance with that of the Social Democratic Forum in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Social Democratic Forum in Northern Ireland is, if one


cares to put it this way, another junta concerned to integrate the Province fully into the United Kingdom and to ensure that the Province, like other parts of the United Kingdom, is governed through appropriate institutions of local government. That is the position of the Social Democratic Forum. It is different from that of the Social Democratic Party in this House whose members should go over to Northern Ireland to acquaint themselves with what Social Democrats in Northern Ireland want.
This time, however, the Social Democratic Forum will, I believe, support the amendment that the hon. Gentleman has proposed. The hon. Gentleman is right. We are creating what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has called a monstrous Assembly. It is not right that it should be left to its own devices year upon year without producing anything of value. If it does not come forward with responsible and sensible proposals, it should be sent about its business.
There is always the danger that the Assembly would not be responsible. The fear is that it would be utterly irresponsible not only in law but also in fact. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), in an earlier debate, should have looked forward so blithely to the new Assembly when he had just treated the Committee to reminiscences of what the previous Northern Ireland Assembly had been like. The hon. Gentleman or, if it was not him, another hon. Gentleman, told hon. Members about Professor Kennedy Lindsay dancing upon the table. In fact, his whole party was dancing on the table because he was a one-man party.
I recall also that there was a riot in the Assembly. After the riot, there was an inquiry into its causes. A friend of mine, a Unionist Assembly man called Peter McLoughlin, asked his impressions of what had happened, said that he was sorry that he could not say because Mrs. Paisley was sitting on his head. When the hon. Member for Belfast, West looks forward to a repeat performance of the Assembly, we should be warned. I believe that Ministers should also be warned about what may be coming upon them. This irresponsible body will feel absolutely free to belabour Ministers and to blame them for all the ills of Ulster. It is natural that this should happen. The Assembly will have the freedom but not the responsibility.
It is the intention of the Bill that the Assembly should come forward with great proposals for the renewal of devolution in Northern Ireland. If it does not and if, through its own divisions, disagreements, tumults or even riots, it cannot do this, a fixed term should be put to its labours. Its service, if that is the word, should be ended. I am persuaded by the arguments put forward so agreeably by the hon. Member for Kirkdale. I shall, of course, listen to other arguments, but I am at present persuaded by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I am sure that it was not intended, but the hon. Gentleman unfortunately gave the impression that failure to form an Executive would arise from the inability of representatives in the Assembly to come to some agreement. The actual problem is that two road blocks have been placed in the way of any such progress by the Government in the Bill in the shape of the 70 per cent. weighted majority and the requirement for cross-community consent. I am sure that there will be no progress whatever regardless of how much good will and co-operation exists in the body itself.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is most unlikely, to put it no higher, that anything coherent can come out of this. I do not think, however, that this is a reason for wishing to crab the amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Farr: I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 104 and 105 standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and myself. I was interested in the reason given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) for his amendment. The hon. Gentleman speaks as a former Minister with considerable knowledge of, and dedication to, Northern Ireland. I was impressed by what he had to say. The only difference between his reasoning and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and myself is a matter of time. We agree with the principle that some limit should be expressed. The amendment of the hon. Gentleman specifies three years while my hon. Friend and I propose one year. As the hon. Member for Kirkdale and, indeed, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) have remarked, the great fear is that the Assembly will simply become a talking shop. It is our hope that if a time limit is written into the Bill, it will concentrate the minds of Assembly members.
We see nothing good in having no time limit written into the Bill. If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept the amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friend and myself, perhaps he will accept the amendment so ably moved by the hon. Member for Kirkdale. Let us have some time limit.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 could be taken separately. Amendment No. 105 proposes that a passage from line 24 onwards on page 4 should be left out, and replaced by the words in the amendment. All that it does is to say what the Bill says, in perfectly sound English, in a different way. It was conjured up for me by one of the parliamentary draftsmen with great expertise. Of course, one has to be careful, because "Her Majesty's opinion" comes into the amendment. That is why it is rather a cumbersome amendment. It incorporates the 12 months time limit which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and I would prefer. We believe—as, probably, do some of our hon. Friends—that if the Assembly cannot produce something meaningful within 12 months, it had best not sit at all.
One of the great disasters of the old Convention was that it became nothing more than a talking shop. When only talk takes place, and large differences in small communities are debated in a small Assembly, the differences become greatly magnified. The right place to hold discussions of national interest is the House of Commons in London. The Assembly in Northern Ireland should, quite properly, discuss local issues and similar matters. If the Assembly were to sit without a time limit on its activities, it would be rather like having a time bomb ticking away for the Secretary of State.
We therefore feel that the Assembly should have a l2 months time limit.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Three years.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Member for Kirkdale suggests three years, but there must be some time limit. In that way, the differences that deeply divide people in Ulster will not


be magnified in an Assembly which sits on in a purposeless way, and devolves only into a form of talking shop.
I come now to amendment No. 104. I want, first, to refer to some of the criticisms that have been made. It has been said by hon. Members on both sides that these amendments are destructive and were designed to waste time and spin out the proceedings on the Bill. This amendment, which would change one word—"and" to "or"—is designed to give my right hon. Friend greater flexibility in dealing with the events which might arise under clause 5(1)(a) and (b).
As drafted, clause 5(1)(a) says
that no proposals are likely to be submitted under section 1 above
and so on—
and
(b) that it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved.
It might be helpful if the Secretary of State had the alternative between (a) and (b). We do not think that it is absolutely necessary to have the action described in paragraph (a) dependent on what is said in paragraph (b).
We want the Secretary of State to have the power and the opportunity to act under either clause 5(1)(a) or (b). There might well be an occasion when the Secretary of State felt that it was in the public interest for the Assembly to be dissolved, regardless whether the proposals in paragraph (a) were likely to lead to the making of any order or futher orders. There could be occasions when the Secretary of State decided that, regardless of that, it was in the public interest to dissolve the Assembly.
In our view, this is a helpful amendment to make life easier for the Secretary of State. It is no way destructive. We look forward with confidence to the time when my right hon. Friend—or, in his absence, my hon. Friend—will recognise that the Bill cannot be 100 per cent. perfect, that many carefully prepared amendments have been tabled to the Bill, and at least make the gesture of accepting this simple amendment.

Mr. Soley: If the hon. Member and others are to convince us that a detailed argument can be made here, he will have to explain why members of his party and of the Official Unionist Party have been trying to dot all the i' s and cross all the t' s for the Assembly. It is unusual for the Conservative Party and the Official Unionist Party to argue that way. If they continue to argue for the amount of control that they seem to want, I suspect that they will soon tell Members of the Assembly how to clean their teeth every morning.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) intervened in a speech that I made last week, but his intervention on that occasion was of more value than his intervention today. This is a meaningful amendment. It is not crossing the t' s and dotting the i' s. If we increase the Secretary of State's flexibility and give him additional powers to dissolve the Assembly, without having to depend on the first paragraph in the clause, life will be easier for him and the framework which he must establish will be better if it is amended as I have suggested.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I appeal to the Government to accept amendments Nos. 104 and 105.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) said that his amendment might be badly drafted, but he presented it extremely well. However, I am sure that the Minister knows exactly what is behind the amendments, and why they have been tabled.
The Ministers may have been a little discouraged and depressed to find a number of their hon. Friends battling against the principle of the Bill, tabling amendments, making excellent speeches, and voting against them in the Lobbies. I hope that it will not further depress Ministers to realise that some of us who have supported the Bill have done so not with great enthusiasm, but because we believe—I hope rightly—that the Secretary of State has an extremely difficult job, that he is a man of real integrity, and that there is no great harm in what has been proposed. I say that because I do not believe that there is the slightest chance of the Bill producing a devolution scheme. If I thought that it would produce devolution, I would vote against it and campaign against it, as I did on the Scottish and Welsh devolution measures. My belief, rightly or wrongly, is that there is no possibility whatever of a devolution scheme coming from the Assembly. If such a scheme did present itself, I cannot see Parliament or the Government approving of it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend not see how damaging it could be if yet another political initiative proves to be the failure that he predicts?

Mr. Taylor: No, I do not. I know Northern Ireland reasonably well because I have many relatives there. If I could find many people in Northern Ireland who thought that there was a possibility that the Bill could produce a devolution, I would agree that such a disappointment could create problems. On the basis of my contacts and relatives, and speaking to those who live in the Province, I find it difficult to meet people outside the narrow confines of the political arena who think that the Bill will lead to devolution.

Mr. William Ross: Did the hon. Gentleman say a moment ago that he found it difficult to find anyone outside the narrow confines of the political spectrum? Surely the politicians in Northern Ireland have little time for the Bill either.

Mr. Taylor: I accept that nobody has fought against the Bill with more force and professionalism than the hon. Gentleman. I certainly accept that there is no enthusiasm among politicians in Northern Ireland for the Bill.

Mr. Nick Budgen: My hon. Friend said that the Bill will never get past the talking shop stage. Does he not think that in the talking shop stage there will be a great deal of frustration and ultimately resentment against Westminster expressed by the people of Northern Ireland through the Assembly?

Mr. Taylor: I accept that that is a possible danger. However, I do not think that it will happen. My general view is that it will do no great damage and will not create any special problems, although I know that my hon. Friend, and many of those who oppose the Bill, take the view that it will cause a great deal of damage. Some hon. Members have suggested that it would go a great deal


further and cause a potential loss of life. I simply express my view that it will do nothing of the sort. It will do no great good and certainly no great harm.
If the Assembly was to carry on for a long period, there could be real problems. We have seen the dangers of an Assembly without powers, which is unlikely to have powers, in the constitutional nonsense and white elephant of the European Assembly, which exists on a similar basis.
There is no doubt at all that the Irish Assembly will be similar to the European Assembly. It will employ consultants to look at Irish problems, whether in relation to roads, the health service or education. It will engage in a great number of visits which will extend the knowledge and experience of the Members. It will take them around the world and add greatly to their experience and general knowledge. Indeed, its members might have the same problems with expenses that have occurred in the European Assembly. By and large, it will achieve for democracy what the European Assembly has; that is, to create an affront to democracy. On the other hand, it will undoubtedly cause a great deal of interest and involve its Members in some useful, entertaining and educative work.
If the situation was to continue, we could have a very real problem. If people of real ability—as I am sure they will be—are elected to the Assembly and simply carry on with general discussions, with no authority and no power, problems could arise which those hon. Members who, like myself, have voted for the principle of the Bill would not like.
The Government have said that they believe that the Bill will lead to democracy. The Government and the Secretary of State have said that they hope that it will lead to devolution. Whether I am right or they are right, I hope that it will be accepted that no good could come from such an Assembly sitting for more than one year, or certainly more than three years, going through many draft constitutions when it is quite apparent that nothing will emerge.
I accept the enormous problems that the Government have. Although I rarely agree with the Ministers on other issues, I have a great deal of personal sympathy for them. I hope that they will at least accept that such an amendment would make the Bill a great deal more acceptable and would also underline the judgment of those Ministers who have argued that devolution will follow. Those who think that it will, and those who think that it will not, must surely agree that nothing at all would be gained for Northern Ireland if the Assembly sat for more than three years doing nothing but passing resolutions condemning the British Government, their policies, and the way in which we approach various problems, and at the same time calling for extra authority to be given to every item of expenditure under the sun.
No great problem will arise if we have the Assembly for a year and if, perhaps, each member goes on two foreign visits. It could also add to the economy of Northern Ireland if various consulting firms, who are not terribly busy these days, have some extra contracts to study aspects of Northern Ireland life. Some useful knowledge could be gained. Such an exercise should continue for a limited period only.
I hope that the Government will be able to accept, perhaps not the amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkdale, perhaps not the amendment so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, but the principle that there must be a real time limit.
I hope that the Government will accept that this argument comes in a helpful spirit from someone who has been persuaded by his admiration for the qualities of the Ministers, although not for their opinions, and for the difficulty of their task. In those circumstances, I hope that they will modify what I regard as a relatively harmless Bill and stop it from becoming a dangerous Bill by accepting the amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). It is clear that he has some understanding of what it will be like inside the Assembly. Indeed, he has accurately described some of what will happen there.
However, it is evident that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the effect of those happenings on the community outside. It is clear that he does not understand what the situation will be when the Bill becomes an Act. He does not understand what the effects will be on the run-up to the elections.
If the hon. Gentleman understands all those things as clearly as he understands what will happen within the Assembly and the behaviour of the folk who are elected there, he will go much further down the road with those hon. Members who oppose this power-sharing Bill than he has so far. One lives in hope that, having begun on that path, the hon. Gentleman may well catch up with those who have long since traversed all of it.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) when he moved the amendment. It was clear that he was concerned about the effect of the continued existence of the talking shop, long after its defeat is evident to all concerned, when it is seen that it cannot develop into the structure that the Government wish.
The hon. Gentleman would no doubt prefer, as he has claimed on many occasions, that a Sunningdale power-sharing type of structure that has long since been rejected by the people of Northern Ireland, should develop.— [Interruption.] The majority of people in Northern Ireland. They have consistently done so through the ballot box. It has brought us all here. We were all pleased to accept it on that occasion, and perhaps we should be more willing to accept it on all occasions.
The notes on the clauses make it clear what the Government envisage after the election. It might he wise for us to look at that. The beginning of clause 5 points out that the devolution order could be revoked by Order in Council if it is clear within the community that there is no longer widespread acceptance of devolution.
That is a misleading statement. It calls into question the inferences that can be drawn from the word "devolution". To the Government, the Opposition Front Bench and the hon. Member for Kirkdale devolution means a power-sharing structure along the lines of the Sunningdale set-up. It means nothing more than that. The average Unionist in Northern Ireland understands devolution to mean the 1920 structure. The Committee has not yet absorbed or understood that fact. When we talk about devolution, we are not talking about the same thing as the Secretary of State. That is the crux of the matter and that is the basic difference in our approach.
7.30 pm
Until that is understood, until the Government understand that those of us in Northern Ireland who are in favour of devolution want our sort of devolution and until


they understand that we are not prepared to pay what is for us the unacceptable price of devolved government —Republicans in Government—no progress will be made. We seek a structure that can be used for the welfare of Northern Ireland. The Government are trying to introduce a structure that will prove detrimental to Northern Ireland's welfare and will lead to its ultimate removal from the United Kingdom. That is the difference between us.

Mr. James A. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman has brought questions of principle to my attention. I know that he speaks with a sincere heart and voice. However, is he saying that if the devolution that he and his colleagues seek is not forthcoming, they will not accept anything else? If so, that implies that they do not want integration and that their party would not contest seats for the Assembly.

Mr. Ross: The only devolution that is of any use to my party is devolution that can be used to the benefit of the people. That implies something along the lines of the 1920 Act. If we cannot have that, we shall be better off without the proposals in the Bill. We made our position clear in 1973 and 1974. My colleagues and I sit in the House because we opposed the 1973 Act. We are the victors within our party in the battle over that Act. That is why we are here. We see no reason to change the principle that brought us here.
If the hon. Member for Kirkdale, who served as a Minister for Northern Ireland, did not understand that, I hope that he will understand it from now on. Indeed, I hope that the Government understand that.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I understand that. However, I asked whether I was right to understand that, in those circumstances, the Official Unionist Party would not put up any candidates in the elections for the Assembly.

Mr. Ross: All political parties in Northern Ireland must fear that, if they do not fight, the principles that they espouse will be submerged and that the position that they sought to defend will be overrun by their foes. In those circumstances, we must fight, but we shall do so on our principles, not on the basis of the Secretary of State's Bill. We shall set forth what we want, and, when our representatives have been elected, they will put our view in the Assembly. They will put our view as a majority grouping and, if necessary, in a coalition with those who agree with us on the fundamental principles.
We shall not sell our souls or our principles for position or salaries. We seek majority rule. We are not interested in all the nonsense in the Bill. The sooner that the Committee understands that the better. Once the Committee understands the principles on which we stand and fight and on which we shall be elected, it is more likely to come to reasonable and sensible conclusions about the Bill.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any suggestion that I implied that. I would never do that. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman but that does not diminish the great respect and regard that I have for several of those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies.

Mr. Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the Assembly's proposals on devolution would be unacceptable to the Government and if the Government's concept of devolution is unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, what is the matter with the Bill, as long as we restrict the Assembly's life to a year?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber yesterday, he would have heard it said that the Bill will not only fail, but will cost lives during its failure. Between its birth and its demise it will cause the deaths of people in Northern Ireland. In view of the terrorism in Ulster, that is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow morning. There are those who will deny it, but those of us who live in the Province, who feel and understand the situation, who understand the fears of our people and the emotions that will be aroused in the political battles to come, know where it will lead. For many people it will lead straight to the nearest graveyard. We are unlikely to forgive lightly those who introduce and bring into being legislation which cannot be of use to us.
According to the notes on clauses, section 27(5) of the Constitution Act will
enable the Assembly to be dissolved if it becomes impossible to make appointments under section 8 of the Constitution Act which will command widespread acceptance throughout the community.
That is the power-sharing statement.
From my brief remarks, hon. Members will have gathered that, if the Government are depending on our acquiescence in setting up such a structure, they should stop doing so. They will not get it. It is as simple as that. If the Government understand that, they are more likely to reach an accurate conclusion.
The last sentence of the first paragraph states that at the end of the day the Government might seek the election of a new Assembly which might enable a fresh administration to be formed which would revive that confidence. All those who read that paragraph carefully and understand its implications will be forced to the conclusion, which is in keeping with what we were told during our talks with the Secretary of State,
If at first you don't succeed,
Try, try again.
That is the basis of the Government's policy and the principle upon which they introduced the Bill. It is nothing more or less than a quicksand for us and for their hopes. As long as the Government insist on the hurdles and conditions laid down, the Bill cannot succeed because we will not sell our principles.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), because his comments are sincere. I have spoken with him on many platforms in the Province. He has made similar comments on those occasions and I have made the same kind of statement. We have both said that we want an Assembly or Parliament that gives us real and meaningful devolution rather than a talking shop or, worse, a power-sharing body which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) reminded us, was said by a Member of the SDLP to be a vehicle that would trundle us into a united Ireland. The hon. Member for Londonderry and I have much in common in terms of the kind of devolution that Northern Ireland should have.
We must examine the amendments to see what they can do. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) recommends a three-year


time scale. Whatever one thinks of the benefit of having a time scale, one must accept that three years gives the Assembly a fair chance.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) suggests 12 months. Whatever protestations he makes to the contrary, I believe that the motive behind his amendment is to ensure that devolution never takes place in any form, rather than to help bring the Assembly to a close if the agony persists.
The two proposals are clear. One is aimed at scuttling the prospect of devolution after one year and the other provides a reasonable chance. We should ask whether there should be a time scale. One can decide that in three ways. First, one can leave the Secretary of State to exercise discretion about whether there is a prospect of achieving devolution by reference to proceedings in the Assembly. That is the Government's proposal. Secondly, one can exercise a time scale. The third option, which is covered in a later amendment, is to allow the Assembly to decide whether hope still exists.
The time scale proposals show a lack of confidence in the people to be elected to the Assembly and their desire for devolution. If Members of the Assembly want devolution they will move towards it in the hope of achieving a devolution that will maintain itself and be to the benefit of the people.
The hon. Member for Kirkdale suggests that the Assembly should come to a decision within three years. An agreement on devolution is not likely to be reached in a plenary session of the Assembly, but in a committee or behind the Chair. Moves afoot will not be known widely. How would the hon. Member for Kirkdale feel if after 2 years 11 months the Assembly is making real progress in such sessions, but the guillotine falls and the Assembly goes out of existence? Surely it would be better for Members of the Assembly to decide. They will not be irresponsible, although people in any chamber can be irresponsible. I am not worried that the Government might be criticised, because they are criticised by bodies throughout the country.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I have taken that into account. Perhaps sub-committees will be established to examine specific recommendations and to report back to the Assembly. There are some complex problems, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes a little further than the words that I propose. Clause 5(1) uses the phrase
If … no proposals are likely".
If there are likely to be proposals, the hon. Gentleman's fears will be unfounded. However, the hon. Gentleman has put doubts in my mind, and if I have doubts it is up to the Government to clear them up as soon as possible.

Mr. Robinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My proposal is contrary to both the time limit and the Government's proposition. I would leave the decision to the Assembly, because it will not want to meet without the prospect of agreement. If I were a Member of the Assembly, after three years, knowing that there was not the slightest prospect of devolution, I should not wish to continue there. The Assembly is the right body to take the decision.
Let us not imagine that the Assembly's only business is to decide on constitutional proposals for devolution. It has other immediate pre-devolution functions. It has

scrutiny, consultative and deliberative roles. The talking shop image is intended to discredit the Assembly before elections take place. The Assembly has a useful role to play.
Whether we say one year, three years or four years, the time will not be entirely wasted if the Assembly carries out useful functions. The Government should leave as much latitude and give as much hope and optimism as possible to allow Assembly Members to achieve devolution. Perhaps I am an optimist, though the game is stacked against us. The proposed 70 per cent. requirement linked to cross-community support makes it difficult, if not unlikely, for a proposition to emerge from the Assembly. Nevertheless, those of us who really want devolution in Northern Ireland are prepared to try. Unlike some hon. Members, I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that we have nothing to lose.
It is said that death will result from the acceptance of these proposals. Does any hon. Member really believe that the IRA needs an excuse to kill, bomb and murder? The IRA has been doing that for years in Northern Ireland. Members of the IRA plan their campaigns, and they will continue to kill in Northern Ireland, because the present security policy is inadequate. Perhaps the Assembly, with the power to discuss security issues, will focus the Government's attention on that.

Mr. Barry Porter: From what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, the Official Unionist view on devolution is clear, but I am not clear about the Democratic Unionist Party's view. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about a majority Assembly in due course, which is not on offer. Is the DUP thinking about an element of power sharing?

Mr. Robinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to outline the DUP's view on devolution. I could do it more easily by referring him to the Vote Office, where he will find a copy of the Northern Ireland Convention report, which proposes majority rule devolution but gives minority parties in the Assembly a meaningful role. It also safeguards the rights of each individual, and a Bill of Rights was proposed.
There is no difference between the Official Unionist Party's policy on devolution, as stated in its manifestos, and what we believe. However, many people in Northern Ireland are beginning to wonder whether Members of the Official Unionist Party believe what is in their election manifesto. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) told us that he did not wish to have legislative devolution in Northern Ireland. He is entitled to that view, and I respect him for stating it openly, but we had legislative devolution before 1972, and legislative devolution was proposed in the Convention report, which ostensibly is the policy of his party.
The Democratic Unionist Party believes in legislative devolution, where the people of Northern Ireland decide through the ballot box who will be the Government, without a rigged system such as power sharing. We are against power sharing, for reasons that were outlined earlier. The right hon. Member for Down, South and his colleagues do not believe in legislative devolution. That is contrary to their election manifesto and the people of Northern Ireland will judge them on it.
I trust that the people of Northern Ireland will elect Assembly Members who not only believe in devolution


but are prepared to go into the Assembly and, although the possibility of achieving meaningful devolution will be difficult, if not impossible, will have the courage to try.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: One need not prove, or argue, after this debate, the importance of the SDP amendment and the issues attached to it. Perhaps the narrowest of them is raised by the amendment of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) which innocently but effectively substitutes "or" for "and" in line 30. If "and" remains, the subsection is a declaration that the indefinite continuance of an Assembly that will not arrive at acceptable devolution proposals is nevertheless in the public interest. The amendment alters it to say that the purpose of the Assembly is to arrive at devolution within the terms of the Bill, but, if it cannot, it is not in the public interest that it should continue to exist indefinitely.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), despite the declaration with which he concluded his speech, said that he would have no interest in being a Member of an Assembly which, after three years, or some other period, failed to arrive at acceptable proposals. He would not be interested in an Assembly which found itself at a dead end on devolution.

Mr. Robinson: What I said was that I would not be interested in being a Member of an Assembly after three years if it did not hold out the prospect of achieving devolution.

Mr. Powell: That is good enough, because we are talking about a visible prospect. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman would not have the patience to carry on if he could see an acceptable solution six months after the initial three years. I am not dealing with the length of the period. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that there would be little point in belonging to such an Assembly if it could do only what is set out in clauses 3 and 4.
We invite the Government to accept, by substituting "or" for "and", what they have professed all along. This is a rolling devolution Bill. The Secretary of State did not say "I shall set up a scrutinising Assembly without responsibility". He said "I shall give an Assembly the opportunity to arrive at devolution, either in one leap or gradually". To substitute "or" for "and" is to accept that an Assembly that has no visible prospect of achieving the intentions of the Bill is not in the public interest. If it is in the public interest, we need a different approach, a different Assembly and a different concept. I hope that, if they can do no more, the Government can accept the amendment, because it appears to correspond to their intentions and view of the Bill.
What period should we set which would provide a reasonable expectation of achieving the Government's objects? The hon. Member for Belfast, East says that we should leave it to the Assembly because the Assembly will not continue its existence if it sees no prospect of success. The hon. Gentleman is relatively young and of a generous disposition. He thinks the best of and imputes the purest and most noble motives, unsullied by personal or pecuniary interest, to his fellow men. However, the belief that an Assembly will terminate its existence, the emoluments that flow from its existence and the privileges and influence that might attach to its members, simply because it honestly declares that it will not get anywhere

with an acceptable form of power sharing that would persuade a Government to create a devolved Assembly, is not realistic. Neither of us can prove our conjecture. He has his view of human nature and I have mine.

Mr. Robinson: It was said earlier that the right hon. Gentleman might stand for election to the Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny it, so some hon. Members may suspect that his silence was assent. If we forget about my generous disposition and the fact that I am not three score years and ten, if the right hon. Gentleman were elected to the Assembly and the three years elapsed, would he not take the proper and honourable course of pulling up stumps and saying "Let us go home"?

Mr. Powell: I do not say that an individual Member might not fail to seek re-election, but he might decide to apply for the Assembly equivalent of the Chiltern Hundreds. No doubt some Member may be of a resigning disposition who, bored and frustrated after one year or three years, would say "I shall have no more of this." However, I doubt the likelihood of an Assembly of 78 or 85 Members terminating its existence by resolution. That is improbable and, in this House, we legislate on probabilities. I conclude that it is for the House, having brought the Assembly into existence, to provide that if it cannot perform its function within a reasonable period its existence should be terminated.
The question then is what is the reasonable period? We have a choice in the two amendments between three years and one year. I am slightly inclined to think that one year might, in all circumstances, be cutting it too fine, but my view is that three years is unrealistically long. If the Government accept the principle that there should be a specific terminus in the clause, I for my part would not cavil if they arrived at an intermediate position between one year, which I would think is the minimum and three years, which seems irrationally long.
8 pm
It seems unrealistic to suppose that it could take as long as three years for an Assembly to become aware of whether it would agree upon anything that was likely to commend itself in the terms of the Bill to a Secretary of State or, as the terms of the Bill may eventually be, to the House of Commons. I believe that in principle the SDP's amendment is right, but I think that the figure written into it is too large rather than too small.
I shall address myself to the question posed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and posed yesterday by the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter), whom I seem always to lose at the moment when I want him most. Both hon. Members have asked "What is the harm in a lame duck Assembly? What is the harm in the continued existence of an Assembly which knows, and which everyone else knows, will not achieve the purpose for which it was created by statute?"
To understand why my hon. Friends and I are convinced that such a survival would be dangerous, it is necessary to understand the purpose behind the Bill on the part of those who were working away at it long before the Secretary of State had any notion that he would have the misfortune to find himself at the Northern Ireland Office.
The intention is to have an Assembly for the sake of having an Assembly, but that was not always so. It is a refinement that was arrived at after certain experiences and


failed attempts. We had an earlier version of the plan. I am sorry that it is necessary for this purpose again to refer briefly to the immortal passage in the daily notes for candidates. I must confess that as a recipient in years gone by of daily notes for candidates during elections I never treasured them on the assumption that hidden inside them there might be, if not a time bomb, an immortal jewel or a torch which in two or three years' time would illuminate the dark corners of politics. However, it has happened and it is a reality.
The document exists, and it can be verified. It referred to the new Government coming
under considerable pressure to launch a new, high-powered political initiative on Northern Ireland with the object of establishing another 'power-sharing' government in the province, which could pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic.
That was Mk. I, and we have Mk. II. I expect that Mk. II was introduced at some time in 1980. It is really the crude Mk. II. The crude Mk. I is the unimproved version which did not learn from 1974, the version which intended to rush the Sunningdale fence. After contemplating for some time the unlikelihood of obtaining a power-sharing Executive which could do the dirty work, which was the idea behind Sunningdale, and which was why the Sunningdale Executive perished, someone asked—I do not know quite who he or she may have been—"Why do we need an Executive to do the job? Surely we can do it with an Assembly. Nothing can prevent us from getting an Assembly elected. If we have elections for an Assembly, everybody must take part. Therefore, we can always get an Assembly elected."
The true purpose behind the Bill, as illuminated by the notes for candidates of 25 April 1979, is the creation of an Assembly. In the immortal words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Rees) in October 1979 "I can tell you, Enoch, there will be an Assembly and you know how I know that there will be an Assembly." It is the Assembly which is now the working piece for paving the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic. Between Mk. I and Mk. II the development which facilitated the transition from Mk. Ito Mk. II was the Anglo-Irish Council and its parliamentary tier, which is the new version or expression of what was crudely expressed three years ago as the federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic.
That has been elaborated in the three successive meetings which the Prime Minister has had with successive Irish Prime Ministers. That has now become the Anglo-Irish Council with its parliamentary tier in which Ulster, via an Ulster Assembly, is to be represented as a third finger. That is the mischief of an idle Assembly. It will do the work that Satan has intended for it. It will
pave the way for a federal constitution
by entering into a federal institution. The Anglo-Irish Council, with the parliamentary tier, is a federal institution. It is because that is understood by people on both sides in Northern Ireland that my hon. Friends and I, alas, are all too sure that we are right when we say that moves in that direction, with legislation which could have that effect, will be the cause of additional and avoidable bloodshed.
It is not, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East suggests, that the IRA requires an excuse for murder, but it needs encouragement. It needs the encouragement of faith that it will get its way. It needs the encouragement of being able to tell itself colourably that that is what Her

Majestry's Government want too. It needs to think that the Government of the United Kingdom, the hated English, are themselves about the business of paving the way for the entry of Ulster into a federal constitution linking it with the Irish Republic.
All terrorism thrives on hope. All terrorism dies where hope is removed. The damage of the Bill and the damage of an Assembly without an overt purpose—I am answering directly the question of the hon. Member for Southend, East—is that it inspires all too justified hope on the part of those who, if this is to happen, mean to be on the bandwagon in circumstances which will give them and terror the upper hand when the bandwagon is rolling.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I cannot recall an earlier occasion when I have disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but is he honestly saying that an Assembly packed with Members of the sort that we have in the House of Commons, of great quality and conviction, would be used as a vehicle to bring about Republicanism? Bearing in mind the convictions that Northern Ireland Members have expressed and the personal bravery that they have shown, does he think that they could be foxed, misled or used to become vehicles for Republicanism?

Mr. Powell: That is exactly what I am saying. That is exactly what is being said by those who, for the purpose stated, intend that there shall be an Assembly, whatever else there is. "Power-sharing Executive or not," they say, "let us have an Assembly."
Let me put one simple proposition to the hon. Gentleman. Let us suppose that there is an invitation to such an Assembly to participate. Why not? There will be one-third of that Assembly who will go off like larks. There will be one-third or one-quarter who will say, "Yes, of course, let us book our tickets". What will the remainder do? Will they remain sitting there and say, "Good riddance to them", or will they say, "We shall not allow those people to speak for Ulster. We shall be in on the act. We shall go along and see what happens. If Ulster is to be discussed in this Anglo-Irish Assembly, as the Prime Minister arranged, which is a fair implication, in her conference with FitzGerald last November, we ought to be there as well." That is how it will happen. That is one of the ways in which it will happen. It is not difficult to envisage.
Therefore, the answer to the question by the hon. Member for Southend, East, "What is the hope and what is the harm in an Assembly in vacuo?", is that an Assembly in vacuo is what Satan wants. It might be thought that even for one who sometimes mistakes the Foreign Office for a nest of vipers, the reference to His Satanic Majesty is inappropriate. If so, I should like to leave a thought for the Committee to ponder.
Whoever wrote—it must have been written before 25 April—what was published on that day in the notes for candidates was aware already of what was said to the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) when he entered upon the office that the present Secretary of State now occupies. He was told, "You ought to understand that you cannot carry out your election manifesto, because there is an agreement in existence already with which it is incompatible."
Whoever wrote those words and sent them to be printed during the election knew that that would happen. But how did he know that it would happen? It was because he knew


that it had already happened. The Civil Service has a habit, when it suspects that there might be a change of Administration—some of us who observed the political scene during the early months of 1979 had a vague notion that there might be a political change of Administration—of getting in touch in advance with those who might be their new political masters to prepare to carry out their wishes in accordance with their election manifesto. Great students of election manifestos are the civil servants.
Therefore, it is not beyond probability that the late Airey Neave, who was murdered at the end of May, had already been told what the right hon. Member for Spelthorne was told early in May. It is for us to decide what reply the late Airey Neave made when he was briefed. All that we know is that he was murdered before May was out. All that we know is that whoever was assisting and working with him in the Conservative Party organisation, whether he did it in piam memoriam or for other purposes, wrote those words into a place where in due course they would be found.
Perhaps those who think that there is no harm in the Bill—no good, but perhaps no harm—might reflect on those matters.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I support the amendments in the belief that the Government could accept, if not the details set out on the Order Paper, at least the intention and purpose that underlie them. The Government could accept them without doing violence to their ideas or the internal consistency of clause 5 and without modifying, except a little for the better, their admission in the clause that the Assembly may be unworkable. For there is no point in any part of the clause unless it is to provide for circumstances in which the Assembly will be unlikely to achieve the purposes of devolution, move away from direct government, covered by clauses 1 and 2, and operate in a way that is contrary to the public interest.
Moreover, the intention behind the amendments should be acceptable to a wide range of opinion in the Committee. It is acceptable to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The amendments are acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) who, broadly speaking, perhaps a little reluctantly, supports the Bill. They are acceptable to me and to the Social Democratic Party. Even among those who are seeking different forms of devolution, the general intention of the amendments should be acceptable.
The amendments alter the clause only in altering the timing of the Secretary of State's consideration of the success or otherwise of the new Assembly. The criteria for dissolving the Assembly are left entirely to the Secretary of State. There is no attempt to constrain him in any way. It is still his judgment, as it is in the clause unaltered by the amendments.
The only constraint on the Secretary of State is to force him to consider the proposition of dissolving the Assembly within a certain time limit. The right hon. Member for Down, South suggested two years as a happy mean between the one year suggested in one amendment and the three years suggested in another. I am prepared to leave the period to the Government. Whatever the period

chosen, it is not stated that the Secretary of State must act within that period. It is stated only that the Secretary of State must consider the situation within that period. The Assembly is put under some pressure to seek the objectives in clauses 1 and 2 coherently and not to dilly-dally and waste time in seeking to fulfil the objectives of the Bill.
The wording of the amendment at present also constrains the Secretary of State slightly in the opposite direction. It seems to imply that he would not be able to consider dissolving the Assembly under the terms of the amendments before the period stated in the amended clause. If it forces him to consider the viability or otherwise of the Assembly within a given period—thereby putting pressure on the Assembly itself—it also prevents him from prejudging the Assembly in advance of the period stated—whichever one may be chosen—should the Government accept the amendments.
The only other point that I wish to make is about the wording suggested by amendment No. 104. That would change from "and" to "or" the preposition linking clause 5(1)(a) and (b). As it stands now it seems possible to argue that if the Assembly is not moving at all to the position provided for under clauses 1 and 2 it is necessary at the same time for it to be contrary to the public interest that it should continue. It is almost impossible for it to be in the public interest for a failing Assembly to continue. Equally, as it links the ability of the Assembly to move towards devolution with it being within the public interest, it is possible that leaving "and" would place an undue restraint upon the Secretary of State at a marginal period when the other roles given to the Assembly were being adequately and successfully carried out within the period but had not yet arrived at the point where one could say that a private agreement had almost been reached on the devolved role.
Giving a date would place a limited restraint on the Secretary of State. Changing "and" for "or" would give him greater freedom of action than the present clause does. I ask the Government to consider seriously the arguments that have been put forward. I can see no way in which the amendments damage the Government's intention, much as I may disapprove of it. The amendments remove some of the hazards that the Assembly could bring to the national interest of the Province and the United Kingdom, and give slightly greater freedom of action to the Secretary of State in his appallingly difficult task.

Mr. Budgen: I shall be brief because I recognise the reality of the debate that we are having. We have been brutally and effectively crushed by a cynical guillotine, and it is plain from the lack of passion that the Government know that they can disregard what we say and need not bother any further to persuade us or anyone else. They know perfectly well that the bulk of the amendments that were tabled will go undebated.
None of us can prove what the consequences of setting up the Assembly will be. The most optimistic of us are those who support the Secretary of State. For him the setting up of the Assembly will lead not merely to constitutional stability but to a period of unparalleled personal happiness for each of the citizens of Northern Ireland and unparalleled prosperity for Northern Ireland. He unfolds before us a vastly euphoric scene. On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr.


Powell) takes an extremely pessimistic view. None of us knows what the ultimate result of setting up an Assembly will be. It is a subjective judgment.
I suggest, albeit from the crushed position from which I speak, that it might be useful if the Secretary of State would be good enough—I say this humbly, knowing that we now have no lever to apply—to explain what principles he believes should be applied in deciding whether the Assembly has failed. In the days when he was trying to persuade us, he was fair enough to say that there was a possibility that his scheme might fail. He has devoted great energy to getting it through the House, crushing the opposition and curtailing debate. I hope that he will be good enough to give us objective guidelines so that in certain circumstances we shall know that the Government will say that they have failed and the initiative will be ended.
One of our contentions is that the initiative will cause great uncertainty in Northern Ireland. One way in which my right hon. Friend can end the uncertainty is to lay down clear criteria for the circumstances in which the initiative will be said by the Government of the day to have failed.

Viscount Cranborne: I support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). I do not feel that three years is necessarily the ideal time, but the spirit that animates the amendment is one with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may find himself in sympathy.
In clause 5 we come to the part of the Bill that the pessimistic among us fear may have to be brought into operation sooner rather than later. For that reason I asked my right hon. Friend in an intervention on schedule 1 in the early hours of the morning last week or the week before—it is difficult to tell which in the miasma of sleeplessness that has surrounded us—whether during our discussion on schedule 1 or clause 5 he could let the Committee know what exactly constituted failure for the Assembly and his initiative.
In certain circumstances no one could doubt that failure had occurred—for instance, a general strike similar to that of 1974. Equally, under others it could be clear that the Assembly was getting nowhere and that the initiative had failed. But there are other circumstances where the judgment of failure or success would be more difficult. For instance, my right hon. Friend devoted considerable time and patience to explaining to the Committee on clause 2 that he would be prepared to accept the proposals by committees of the Assembly for devolved government in certain sectors, if he judged that they had attracted cross-community support, and that that support would not necessarily be evidenced by 70 per cent. of the elected members of the Assembly supporting the proposals. If my right hon. Friend is to exercise that judgment, the obverse of the coin must be that the Assembly has failed if he judges that cross-community support has been lost.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will define the circumstances that mean that failure has occurred. It will be difficult to define that. Indeed, it could be a source of argument for those in the Province who are not necessarily men and women of good will. They could drag out the Assembly in such a way that it might encourage the men of violence.
8.30 pm
This is relevant to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkdale. If we do not put a term on the deliberations of the Assembly or have an opportunity to draw the whole thing to a close, one of the two disadvantages of the Bill that have prompted me to take such an interest in it will be magnified to an unnecessary extent.
The Bill is an honest attempt to do something to rectify the sad story of Northern Ireland and to put matters right. But, in effect, it does exactly the opposite. It sets in a sort of plaster of Paris the opposing views of the two communities in Ulster. By setting up an Assembly, the Bill institutionalises the very conflict that has led to the violence and economic decline that we all deplore. So long as that is institutionalised within the Province, we lose any chance there may be of bringing that argument to a close. It cannot happen. The only way in which we can hope to achieve something is by submerging the more parochial concerns of Northern Ireland into the greater concerns of the United Kingdom at Westminster.
If no term is put on the deliberations of the Assembly, we shall merely encourage that plaster cast to set hard and we shall make that mould even more unbreakable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) suggested with understandable doubt that the Bill can do no harm. The right hon. Member for Down, South will correct me if I am wrong, but I should like to relate a story that I heard about Lord Hartington, who served in Cabinet for many years during the latter part of the 19th century. It is reputed that he uttered only one sentence during his Cabinet career, which was
If in doubt, much better not.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Perhaps I can save myself from undue harassment. Does my hon. Friend agree that what I said was that no great harm would come from this so long as there was a time limit?

Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting me right. However, he suggested that the Bill, accompanied by a time limit, would not do great harm to Northern Ireland. There are those of us on the Conservative Benches who dispute that view because we feel that it is virtually impossible for any political initiative, once it has been taken, to be negated, and for the political scene upon which it erupted to remain the same as it was before that intitiative was taken. It is like saying that a match, once it has been struck, is still a match, but the fire has consumed it and the constitution of the match has changed considerably. To a certain degree that is what I fear the Bill will do.
I beg my right hon. Friend to give consideration to the spirit of the amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkdale in order that we may have some chance of curtailing what some of us feel could be a most damaging initiative in the Province.

Mr. Concannon: In the amendments we have a choice between a 12-months and a three-months guillotine of the Assembly, or at least of its scrutinising, consultative and deliberative functions. I believe that if we were to push the Assembly into going into devolution too quickly, that would be a tragic mistake.
Once the Assembly is elected, it will be wise not to consider any devolution propositions for at least a year. What is necessary at the beginning is for people to find out


whether they can work with one another, so that some of the distrust between the various sections in the Province may be overcome.
I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), in that I do not think that any devolution proposals will come in the first instance from the floor of the Assembly. They are likely to arise from discussions between the various parties and sections within the Assembly and from those other areas in which, as hon. Members know, arrangements tend to be made. It is from those areas that package deals might arise.
Having stressed the need for caution on the part of the Assembly, I still believe that the Minister should give the view of the Government on the timetable for devolution proposals. In saying that, I bear in mind the flexibility that the Government wish to put in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will explain to the House the circumstances in which he would use the relevant clauses in the Bill to wind up the Assembly. I do not think that we should put the Assembly in a straitjacket. We should give it a reasonable time in which to set about its business. I am not impressed with the period of one year; indeed, I think that even three years would be too short a period, if anyone were thinking of a timetable. The Government should explain what they intend to do with the clauses and when they will bring them into action.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I have listened with great care to the arguments in favour of a time limit under the provisions of clause 5(1) and noted the reasonable way in which they were advanced
I can understand the wish expressed by many hon. Members to concentrate the minds of those who are elected to the Assembly on bringing forward proposals for devolution. Therefore, I can see the argument which underlies the amendments in favour of a time limit. I shall explain to the Committee why, having listened carefully, I am unconvinced by the arguments.
If my reply is brief it is no discourtesy to the Committee. It is due partly to the constraints of the timetable motion and because, in essence, the point that underlies the amendments is simple. I remind the Committee that we are talking about something that the Government profoundly wish will never happen. We hope that the Assembly, when elected, will do useful work, that it will lead to devolved government in Northern Ireland and that it will not be necessary for it to be dissolved.
The twin pillars of clause 5(1) are that no proposals are likely to emerge and that it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved. While the aim of the Government at the end of the day is devolution and the restoration of devolved government to the Province, it is at least possible that that may not happen but that the Assembly could for a prolonged period do useful work on behalf of the people. In any case, I agree with the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that devolution is not likely to be rushed. As a Tory, I tend to believe in evolutionary rather than revolutionary solutions to political problems. I hope to see the Assembly beginning to work together and its committees developing a system of working together and tackling departmental problems and forming a sound basis for eventual devolved government.
Several hon. Members have asked for more clarity and certainty about the future of the Assembly and the way it will work than I can give. Sometimes, when I listen to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I remember that fellow, whose name escapes me, who said:
I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything".

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Perhaps it may add to my credentials that when the 1973 Act, with its catastrophic end, was going through the House, I predicted exactly what would happen to it and the reasons why it would happen.

Mr. Scott: I envy the right hon. Gentleman his certainty. I have no magic way of foretelling how the work of and relationships within the Assembly will develop. Certainly neither the Government nor the House of Commons would be at this stage of the Committee proceedings unless we, the Government, and it, the House, had been convinced on Second Reading that this was the best chance of restoring devolved Government to the Province.
There are hypothetical advantages in a time limit, but they are outweighed by the practical difficulties and constraints that this could place in certain circumstances on the movement to devolved government. The basic principle which underlies the whole approach of the Bill is flexibility and the freedom of the Assembly to come up with its own proposals. That flexibility and that freedom apply as much to the time taken over these matters as to other aspects of the process.
In any case, I reiterate that stage one is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) laid great stress on the consultative and scrutinising powers that the Assembly will have in stage one. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I look forward to working closely with the committees which will be set up under stage one and to co-operating with them in solving the problems that confront the Province.
Of course, I recognise that, in the absence of any proposals for devolution in what has been called a lame duck Assembly, such an Assembly, with little responsibility, could degenerate into a source of instability and discontent throughout the Province. If that unhappy state of affairs should arise—I hope it will not—the remedy is already to hand.
What matters is not the period of time, but the conduct of the Assembly. If, as some hon. Members forecast, its conduct is unruly, divisive or damaging, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to dissolve it at any time. If, as we hope, its effect in the first stage is constructive and helpful, it would be foolish to do away with it, even if it is not moving towards devolution by a predetermined time when, if I may use the phrase, a guillotine comes down.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend please respond to the reasonable request by his ally the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that there should be a clear statement of the circumstances in which the Government would regard it as appropriate to dissolve the Assembly?

Mr. Scott: I congratulate my hon. Friend. I believe that he may just have reached a century of interventions. I am sure that we all congratulate him on the way in which he has wielded the willow in Committee.
If my hon. Friend has been listening to my comments, he will be able to draw from them the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend might wish to dissolve the Assembly. If it were behaving in an unruly, divisive or damaging way and it was clear that no proposals were likely to be forthcoming, those would be clear grounds for the Assembly to be dissolved, but if it were doing useful work, even if there were no immediate prospect of its moving towards bringing forward proposals for devolution, it would be foolish to dissolve it.
If we were working constructively with an Assembly and Committees so that it was possible to achieve what is currently not being achieved for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives were able regularly to scrutinise, criticise and work constructively with Ministers in Northern Ireland, that would be useful work on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland and for the future of the Province.

Mr. Grimond: Surely the danger is not only that the Assembly may be divisive, but that it may turn into a forum in which people demand more and more expenditure because they have no responsibility for implementing what is done or for raising the taxes.
The hope must be that the Assembly's mind will be concentrated on taking over responsibility. Surely it would concentrate the Assembly's mind better if there were a time limit within which it had to make proposals for taking over responsibility.

Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman underestimates the extent to which the present arrangements make it possible for pressure groups and elected representatives in Northern Ireland to demand extra expenditure from the Treasury, even though they have no responsibility for raising the money.
A system of committees working on a departmental basis ought to be able to find a constructive way to overcome the problems facing Northern Ireland and to make constructive suggestions. In the light of the power that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has if the Assembly is unruly, divisive or damaging and is unlikely to come forward with proposals for devolution, I see no reason to cavil, crib or confine it by timetables.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Proctor: (Seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Dean.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Tellers have returned. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the Division.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 33, Noes 108.

Division No. 236]
[8.50 pm


AYES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Knight, Mrs Jill


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Budgen, Nick
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Crawshaw, Richard
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Cryer, Bob
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Dunlop, John
Molyneaux, James


Dunn, James A.
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Murphy, Christopher


Farr, John
Penhaligon, David


Freud, Clement
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Kilfedder, James A.
Sandelson, Neville





Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. John Roper and


Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)
Mr. A. J. Beith.


NOES


Arnold, Tom
Miscampbell, Norman


Aspinwall, Jack
Moate, Roger


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Montgomery, Fergus


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Moore, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Myles, David


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Neale, Gerrard


Berry, Hon Anthony
Needham, Richard


Bevan, David Gilroy
Newton, Tony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Onslow, Cranley


Blackburn, John
Osborn, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Patten, John (Oxford)


Bright, Graham
Pawsey, James


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Pollock, Alexander


Butcher, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Prior, Rt Hon James


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Cope, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, Sir Albert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Dorrell, Stephen
Rifkind, Malcolm


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Rossi, Hugh


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Goodlad, Alastair
Scott, Nicholas


Greenway, Harry
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Silvester, Fred


Hawksley, Warren
Sims, Roger


Heddle, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hill, James
Smith, Dudley


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hordern, Peter
Speed, Keith


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Speller, Tony


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stainton, Keith


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stevens, Martin


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Thompson, Donald


Lang, Ian
Thornton, Malcolm


Latham, Michael
Trippier, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Trotter, Neville


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Wakeham, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Macfarlane, Neil
Watson, John


MacGregor, John
Wells, Bowen


Major, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Marlow, Antony
Wheeler, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wickenden, Keith


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Wolfson, Mark


Mather, Carol
Younger, Rt Hon George


Mellor, David



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Nine o'clock.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Committee divided: Ayes 121, Noes 20.

Division No. 237]
[9.00 pm


AYES


Arnold, Tom
Berry, Hon Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Blackburn, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Beith, A. J.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Braine, Sir Bernard






Bright, Graham
Montgomery, Fergus


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Moore, John


Butcher, John
Myles, David


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Neale, Gerrard


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Needham, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Newton, Tony


Cope, John
Onslow, Cranley


Costain, Sir Albert
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Crawshaw, Richard
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Patten, John (Oxford)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Pawsey, James


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Penhaligon, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Pollock, Alexander


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Freud, Clement
Prior, Rt Hon James


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Goodlad, Alastair
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Greenway, Harry
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Rifkind, Malcolm


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Hamilton, Hon A.
Roper, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rossi, Hugh


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Hawksley, Warren
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Heddle, John
Sandelson, Neville


Hill, James
Scott, Nicholas


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hordern, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Silvester, Fred


Howells, Geraint
Sims, Roger


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Smith, Dudley


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Speed, Keith


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Speller, Tony


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Stainton, Keith


Lang, Ian
Stevens, Martin


Latham, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Trotter, Neville


Macfarlane, Neil
Wakeham, John


MacGregor, John
Waller, Gary


Major, John
Watson, John


Marlow, Antony
Wells, Bowen


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Wheeler, John


Mather, Carol
Wickenden, Keith


Mellor, David
Wolfson, Mark


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Mills, Iain (Meriden)



Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Miscampbell, Norman
Mr. David Hunt and


Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Moate, Roger



NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Molyneaux, James


Budgen, Nick
Murphy, Christopher


Cranborne, Viscount
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cryer, Bob
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Dunlop, John
Skinner, Dennis


Farr, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kilfedder, James A.



Knight, MrsJill
Tellers for the Noes:


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. William Ross and


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

AMENDMENTS OF CONSTITUTION AND ASSEMBLY ACTS

Mr. Proctor: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. It will not have escaped your notice that the Division before last took 14 minutes from beginning to end. Just over 100 Members voted in the Government Lobby, but that should not have affected the time that the count took. Because the Division took as long as 14 minutes, did you, Mr. Dean, notice that that prevented my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) from pressing his amendment No. 105 to a Division, as I am sure he would have wished to do had time permitted?
I am aware of the difficulty caused by the guillotine motion, but would you rule, Mr. Dean, that just because the Government have their draconian guillotine motion they should not be unfair by delaying the counting of the votes?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I realise his difficulty. It is my job to ensure that the rules are observed. In my view, the Division was not unduly long; therefore, the process was in order.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in
page 8, line 25, leave out from 'departments' to end of line 27.
The amendment will delete paragraph (b) of what would be subsection (1) of the Constitution Act. Schedule 2 is almost a re-enactment of a large part of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. It will have effect only under full devolution. Recent debates have disclosed that, of those who have taken a direct interest in the Bill, only a small minority believe that clause 6 will attract schedule 2 or that we are debating a proposal that is likely to have practical effect or significance.
However, it was valuable that schedule 2 was included in the Bill, with the possibility that it created, within the rules of order and the discretion of the Chair, for the Constitution Act 1973 and the power-sharing Executive embodied in it to be reviewed after nine years by way of amendments to the amendment to schedule 2 of the Constitution Act 1973, which comprises schedule 2 of this Bill. It is unfortunate that we cannot devote the attention that we should otherwise have been able to devote to a post mortem on the 1973 Act. As long as that Act remains on the statute book, there will always be a danger that someone will attempt to bring it into effect. No time spent in dedicating oneself to examining undesirable features of the 1973 Act can be time wasted.
As the schedule stands at present and, with modifications, as section 8 of the 1973 Act stood, the Secretary of State can appoint not only the heads of Northern Ireland Departments—what in our terminology would be Ministers or even Cabinet Ministers—but persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine. My amendment seeks to shine a searchlight upon those words by deleting them.
The words are injudiciously and undesirably wide in conferring powers on a Secretary of State to appoint persons to the government of part of the United Kingdom. He may appoint them to discharge such other functions as he may determine. The indeterminacy of the functions for


which the Secretary of State can appoint Ministers is undesirable. However, it carries with it the intention—the paragraph paves the way—to enable the Secretary of State to concoct an Administration with a view not so much towards efficiency of administration and the control of Departments as to awarding sufficient jobs, or inventing and awarding sufficient jobs, so as to set up a power-sharing Executive where the competing interests will be stilled by reciprocal or mutual rewards.
This is the way in which in the first essay in 1973–74 the power was used to create functions which were not necessary for the effective discharge of the government of Northern Ireland and to appoint particular persons because they were drawn from certain parties, or even because they were of certain religious persuasions. It is part of the armoury of power sharing, and no doubt it enables the Secretary of State to participate in the wheeling and dealing which he anticipates will precede the making of proposals to him under clause 1.
This is log-rolling institutionalised in the formation of a Northern Ireland Administration in the hope of managing to cobble together an Administration which will be supported by the Assembly. That renders it objectionable to my hon. Friends and myself and it should render it objectionable to anyone who is used to and accepts the logic and function of our own parliamentary institutions and the responsibility of Government to the House of Commons.
This is an opportunity for us to examine some of the implications of a power-sharing Executive and the countervailing inducements which might be necessary to bring such an Executive into existence, and to obtain from the Government a statement as detailed as they can make it of what they have in mind, together with specific examples, if the Secretary of State proposes to act under paragraph (b). If no satisfactory explanation can be given and no sufficient definition is offered to the House of Commons, the Committee would be justified in doing what the amendment proposes and deleting paragraph (b).

Mr. Farr: I support the amendment. It is a pity that it has not attracted more attention. It is vital that the patronage of the Secretary of State is properly curtailed and dovetailed. He cannot be allowed to get away with a Bill that is so loosely worded as, for example, in this paragraph of schedule 2.
I support the intention of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to omit paragraph 1(1)(b). The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to limit the appointments within the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If my right hon. Friend does not say "Yes" to this, it is in the national interest that he should give the Committee an indication of how he will limit his budget. It would be deplorable if the number of persons to be employed by him was virtually without limit. It would be even more deplorable if he were to have a budget without limit to remunerate those so employed.
The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to the words "cobbled together", and that is rather typical of the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Bill. The Bill has been cobbled together. If one takes the trouble to look up "cobbled together" in the Oxford English Dictionary, or even in the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, in the House of Commons Library, one sees that it means "Patching or joining together in a

cumbersome or clumsy manner". That is typical of the attitude of my right hon. Friend and some of his Ministers and advisers.
The Bill has been cobbled together. It has been sent on its way with the best wishes of some hon. Members. It is hoped that, as it goes along, it will stagger from one eventuality to another by the patching up in a cumbersome way of the necessary parts of the Bill which are loosely worded at the moment. I agree that paragraph (b) should be deleted. There must be a strict limit on my right hon. Friend's budget or, for that matter, his successor's budget. If such a curtailment is not written into the Bill, we shall be doing a disservice to Northern Ireland, both now and for the future.

Mr. William Ross: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who has set out the objections that any reasonable man must have to this part of the Bill.
In schedule 1, under paragraph 5 the Secretary of State can appoint people to assist the head of a department. It appears that that is half of the Government's stick and carrot. We have the carrot of salaries and cars, which have been mentioned, and the stick of the power of the Government to refuse to allow devolution to come into operation unless it is power sharing. We now have the carrot of jobs for the boys.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend so early in his remarks. I wonder whether he is right in associating schedule 2, paragraph l, with schedule 1, paragraph 5(1)(b), which refers to
a person to assist the person appointed as mentioned in paragraph (a)".
That is the head of a Department. If all that paragraph 1(1) (b) in the amendment were about was appointing parliamentary secretaries, so to speak, at least we should know where we stood. My hon. Friend has detected something that I failed to find if he can identify what is set out in paragraph (b) of the new subsection (1) of the Constitution Act with the appointment of a parliamentary secretary. If the Minister says that that is all there is to it, we shall have been helped on our way, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend is justified in that assumption.

Mr. Ross: I hate to disagree with my right hon. Friend. Schedule 1, paragraph 5(1)(b), refers to
a person to assist the person appointed as mentioned in paragraph (a)".
I do not believe that that is simply a parliamentary secretary. I should have thought that that was the equivalent of a vice-chairman at that stage of the game, before the Assembly evolved into a power-sharing Executive, which the Government desire. It is in that light that I make my remarks. No doubt the Minister will guide us and tell us which of us is correct in his assumption. It is clear that that is in paragraph (b):
persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine.
It may be that I am incorrect, and that the persons to be appointed are not to be vice-chairmen to the heads of Departments. Perhaps it goes further than that. If it does, I should be very worried. I am worried about the ice cream being offered to those appointed to secondary posts.

Mr. Proctor: I should like to add my comments about amendment No. 70. At an earlier stage we discussed some of the matters mentioned in schedule 2. The purpose of


schedule 2 is to amend the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and to revise section 8 of that Act. It does that in a number of ways that the Minister will no doubt explain. The amendment relates to one aspect of the changes—paragraph (b) of the new subsection (1) of the Constitution Act, which deals with the ability of the Secretary of State to appoint
persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine.
What are such other functions to be? What work does the Minister visualise that those persons will do? It is important. Are they to be of assistance to those persons who are appointed by paragraph (a)—
persons to be heads of the Northern Ireland departments"?
Are they to be in some way Ministers without special responsibilities?
We are setting up an Assembly that in its early days will have few responsibilities or duties, so I suppose that it is consistent with that that we should appoint persons to have no responsibilities. I should like to know what functions those persons will perform and what type of person will be appointed. How many appointments will the Secretary of State make? The notes on clauses are helpful to the Committee in advising us on that matter. The new subsection (3) states:
The total number of persons at any time holding appointments under this section shall not exceed thirteen but the Secretary of State may by an order made by statutory instrument increase or further increase that number".
Why has the number 13 been chosen? It limits paragraph (b).
The notes on clauses state:
if required, there could be a chief executive member, Heads of the Northern Ireland Departments (which are expected to number 6 shortly)"—
after the order earlier this week that is now the position—
and deputies to those Heads; but there would be no need to proceed in this way. Under the Constitution Act, as amended by Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973, the maximum size of the Executive is 11, although the maximum size of the administration as a whole (which includes the Executive) is 15. The figure of 13 is considered a sensible maximum bearing in mind the size of the Assembly, but that figure can be increased by statutory instrument subject to negative resolution.
Why was the number 13 chosen? Why was it decided to allow the Secretary of State initially to appoint six
persons to discharge such … functions as he may determine",
always on the assumption that there will be devolution of all the Departments in one go? Is there anything to stop the Secretary of State appointing
persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine.
without any Departments being devolved? Could 13 people be appointed under paragraph (b) without a Department being devolved?
What expense will public funds be put to in the appointments under paragraph (b)? What sum is in mind?
Why does the Minister feel that there should be greater flexibility in the Bill compared with that in the Convention legislation? According to the notes on clauses the Government feel that they need to make the amendments because of the need for greater flexibility.
The schedule sets up a crazy cocktail of Ministers of various sorts, sizes, colour and degree. It is a power-sharing exercise that I believe will come to naught, but I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me on the detail if not on the principle.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The amendment is designed to limit the size of the gravy train—the power of patronage in the hands of the Secretary of State who is bent on a policy with which a number of us on Government Benches profoundly disagree.
I put one question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is eager to reply to the points that have been made. It involves the manner in which the members of the Executive are to be appointed. Paragraph 51 of the White Paper describes the manner in which the Secretary of State will make appointments to the Executive. It is not clear whether the Secretary of State, in taking account of recommendations from and the views of parties in the Assembly, will be able to adopt a Cabinet system and permit the Chief Executive to make the appointments, even though the Secretary of State in name makes the appointments.
At the time of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1973, I moved an amendment to the 1973 legislation, with the support of the Unionist Party, to provide that, instead of the Secretary of State making all the appointments to the Executive, the Chief Executive should be able to appoint his colleagues in the power-sharing Executive. That amendment was not accepted by the then Government. However, it was a substantial point. Had the amendment been accepted, the power-sharing Executive might perhaps have worked less badly than it did. What is the position under the new arrangements?
If I have trespassed slightly outside the compass of the new subsection (1)(b), I apologise to you, Mr. Dean, and to the Committee.

Mr. John Patten: Let me first direct the Committee's attention to the matters of principle that have been raised. I shall then try to address myself to the important matters of detail, even if I am unable to satisfy hon. Members on the principles.
As the Committee knows, the purpose of paragraph 1 of schedule 2 is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill—to continue to provide flexibility. That is one of the motifs that runs through the Government's thinking in the Bill, the White Paper that preceded it and the scheme that we think is necessary to reach the levels of accommodation that will be required to make cross-community support a possibility.
The intention behind new section 8(1)(b) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, which the amendment seeks to delete, is to empower the Secretary of State, as does the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, to appoint individuals to discharge functions other than those of the head of a Northern Ireland Department.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked us to turn the searchlight on these powers. I shall now attempt to do that to the best of my ability. I hope that I can demonstrate what is intended. For example, the power given to the Secretary of State would enable my right hon. Friend to appoint deputies to the heads of Northern Ireland Departments in a future devolved Administration—exactly as some hon. Members have suspected and hypothesised. There are good reasons for retaining this freedom. It is not simply that it may be sensible to appoint deputy heads of Departments. That would be possible, but it would not be necessary to proceed in that way. In other words, what I have said is the most practical example of what might happen under full devolution.
9.45 pm
The provision that the amendment seeks to delete recognises, as does the Bill as a whole, that any devolution package will, without any doubt, require accommodation—not a very popular word with some members of the Committee—among different groups of the Assembly. Those who were members of the last Assembly will know how difficult it was to achieve that level of accommodation. We have heard in earlier debates of the difficulties that there were then in achieving accommodations.
Therefore, it has been the aim of the Government, in framing the Bill and in designing the schedule, to give maximum flexibility within which the Assembly can come to such accommodations. The Government believe that accommodations will be facilitated by the flexible arrangements that the provision offers. It is worth while spelling it out again, even if it means using dreaded terms such as power sharing. There is nothing in the Bill that requires power sharing. That is absolutely clear on the face of the Bill. Equally, it is not ruled out. It is up to the Assembly to decide.
Several Opposition Members have made great play during the long nights—it has not always been unamusing to hear them—of the word "cobble". We have been told that things are to be cobbled together or patched up. Is that not part and parcel of politics in the Province now?
I read the papers in the Province, and I read with some pleasure and interest that in early June, as a result of a deal between the Official Unionists and the SDLP, an SDLP member was elected to be chairman of the Strabane district council, with the support of a member of the Official Unionist Party as vice-chairman. That was an accommodation made within Strabane district council, which is one of the 26 district councils within the Province.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am glad that the Minister has brought to the attention of the Committee the situation in the Strabane district council, because it makes the case that we have been arguing throughout the debate—that local government is the place where accommodations can be reached between people of Republican tradition and people of a Unionist allegiance. It surely bears out the view that there are not great obstacles to the enlargement of the functions of local government. The argument that local government cannot be trusted with enlarged powers does not hold water.

Mr. Patten: I do not think that it necessarily proves or disproves my hon. Friend's case. What it proves is that in the political landscape of Northern Ireland there are forces which, when there is the will, can find the way to come to accommodations. If it can be done in Strabane district council, I see no reason why it cannot be done in the new Assembly when that Assembly sits, as I hope and believe it will, in the autumn.

Mr. Molyneaux: I do not know anything of the background of the Strabane arrangement and it may be that that will exist on a stable basis. The phrase used by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) may not mean quite the same thing. The dictionary that I consulted on the meaning of cobbling something together referred to someone who is not a shoemaker mending footwear in a coarse fashion. I do not think that that would inspire confidence in any of the electors in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Patten: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about definitions, he is the leader of the Official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland and I have not seen from him any signs of dissent about the arrangement in Strabane district council. I repeat that if an accommodation can be reached in Strabane, it can be reached in the Assembly.
Turning from matters of principle to matters of detail, I shall try to answer the important points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), with his characteristic list of questions, to which I have grown accustomed in the last 70 hours.
It is worth while spelling out that, under partial devolution, all the members of the Northern Ireland Administration must be Members of the Assembly. It is important to get that straight.
I must bring in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on the arrangements under full devolution. It is clear on the face of the Bill, and indeed it is spelt out, that there is no possibility of the infinite extension, without parliamentary supervision, of the number of members of an Executive whom my right hon. Friend could appoint. The number—13—is specified. That number could be increased by an order at a later stage, but it could not be increased in a creeping way without full parliamentary approval.
Under full devolution there can be up to 13 members of the Executive as opposed to 11 under the last arrangement. All but two of them have to be Assembly Members. No hon. Member has picked on that point, but it is important. Only one of the heads of Departments, of which there will be six, or seven if there has been fission among the Departments, can be a non-Assembly Member. There is absolutely no requirement as such for there to be a 13-man Executive. It is not all or nothing under full devolution. It is not nothing or 13. It is simply a maximum figure.
There could be a smaller Executive with other posts in the Administration outside the Executive. For example, there could be three members in the Executive with other posts outside the Executive, but involving the headships of Departments. That is just one possibility in the whole range of possibilities under the flexible provisions in the Bill so as to give Members in the Assembly the chance to make the accommodations that are necessary. I see the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who has long experience of these matters, assenting to what I say. I welcome that. All that we have sought to do is to give the Assembly maximum flexibility to assist it in drawing up devolution proposals—nothing more, nothing less.
One of the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon did not perhaps take into account the fact that the maximum of 13 relates only to full devolution. Why 13? Under full devolution there could be a Chief Executive and because of the passage of the Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 two nights ago, there will be six devolved Departments at least when the Assembly commences. The Assembly may wish to recommend that each head of Department should have an assistant. If the Assembly so recommends, and if that has the cross-community assent of the Assembly, the powers conferred on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this schedule allow him to make those appointments. It is as straightforward as that. But it only makes it possible for it to happen. It does not require it to happen.
I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) about appointments being made by the Secretary of State. All appointments will be made by the Secretary of State. I believe that to be clear on the face of the Bill. If, however, the Assembly were to agree to a scheme reached after an accommodation which gave the Chief Executive a special role in choosing members of the Executive, he could do so at that stage. It is the same story again. It will depend upon the nature of the agreement reached by the Assembly, making maximum use of the flexible provisions in the Bill.
Lest any hon. Member fear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make the appointments under this subsection in an arbitrary fashion, I remind the Committee that before making any appointments under section 8 of the Constitution Act he is under a statutory requirement to consult. Once again flexibility is married to consultation. My right hon. Friend must consult as far as practicable with the parties represented in the Assembly and take into account any proposals for devolution submitted to him.
The amendment should be resisted. Schemes that need to be brought forward to make devolution work will depend on a range of accommodations and the options presented to my right hon. Friend in making such accommodations are another example of the flexibility that may be necessary.

Mr. Molyneaux: In tabling the amendment, we did not mean to imply that the Secretary of State had invented a provision for additional posts in Government where they were felt to be necessary and expedient and perhaps in furtherance of his plans.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, similar powers existed in the 1973 Act and they were put to good use. I remember the great day when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the present Home Secretary—announced to the House the composition of the power-sharing Executive. I have no doubt that he had carried out the fullest consultations with the parties that showed a willingness to participate in the power-sharing experiment or to nibble at the bait.
We had an odd example of Cabinet formation, because the then Secretary of State mentioned no names and used only party labels. He said that the Chief Executive would be an Ulster Unionist and the Deputy Chief Executive would be a member of the SDLP. He went on down the list only to find at the end that he had one man too many. As a result, the right hon. Gentleman created a new post—the Office of Law Reform—and the occupant for whom it was invented was elected without reaching the electoral quota.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) reminded me earlier that another obscure individual was appointed to the Office of Co-ordination and Planning. Such were his talents for co-ordination and planning that he never succeeded in finding a vacant office from which to carry out his mysterious duties.
Those were front-line Ministers and Members of the Executive. Our amendment deals with a lesser breed—Ministers without portfolio. There are precedents for the appointment of such Ministers. A former Northern Ireland Prime Minister who found himself in difficulty

with his party in Parliament hit on the bright idea of putting half the Members in Government. His troubles were at an end, at least for the time being.
I do not suggest that the Secretary of State will face such temptations. He will not be answerable to the Assembly and will not require votes. He will not even lower himself to attending the Assembly if he can possibly help it.
The six Ministers who represent the six Departments in Northern Ireland can rightly claim to be overworked, but that is a result not of the burden of their ministerial duties, but of the fact that, by their own choice, they are bogged down with duties that could and should be discharged by district councillors and local government officers.
10 pm
As the Minister reminded us, the fact that people would co-operate in administering the law and carrying out local government functions, even at a high level, as they have always done in local government, is illustrated by his example of Strabane. I hope that the Secretary of State will think seriously in the coming days about all that has been said in this debate and, whatever the fate of the Bill, turn his attention to the essential job that has to be done, Stormont or no Stormont, and give the present district councils, almost by a stroke of the pen, the functions that they will have to discharge whatever system of government is designed to reign over them.
The Minister, in his winding-up speech, reminded the Committee of the flexible nature of, and the structure that is expected to result from, the Bill. We would not disagree. The Bill is flexible in the sense that it can be pushed and pulled in all directions. It can be blown about in all directions. In that sense, it resembles a tethered balloon—sometimes not a very well tethered balloon.
It is true, as the Minister said, that nothing in the Bill refers to power sharing. However, all hon. Members know that the Bill, even as it stands, without the mysterious Government amendment on power sharing that is being kept well under wraps until we reach the end of our debates, will not go anywhere without power sharing. We delude ourselves if we imagine otherwise. Despite what the Minister said, we still feel that the scope provided by the new subsection (1)(b) goes far too wide. I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends and all hon. Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Proctor: I am sorry to have to press my hon. Friend the Minister because he has been very courteous, as always, and very thorough in replying to points put to him. I had thought that my hon. Friend would not be able to satisfy me on the principle. It is entirely due to my own lack of comprehension. I should like to try to discover whether I understand the position correctly in regard to the maximum number of 13 set out in the new subsection (3). I think that the Minister was telling me that the maximum number of 13 would come into play only when the Assembly had the full panoply of its devolvped powers covering all six Departments. My hon. Friend said that the Bill would allow the maximum of 13 only with the full six Northern Ireland Departments devolved to the Assembly. Can my hon. Friend say where this is set out in the Bill? Can he tell me where to find that connection between the maximum number of 13 and full devolved powers for the Assembly?
Is it possible for, say, three Departments to be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and for there to be three


deputy heads of Department as well as three heads of Department, making a total of six? Could the remaining seven positions be persons who would
discharge such other functions as he may determine"?
Is there any limit on the number of
persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine
where full devolved powers have not come about? I hope that my hon. Friend understands the example that I have given.
My hon. Friend the Minister also drew my attention to new subsection (5), about the two persons at any time
holding appointments under this section
who may not be Members of the Assembly. Although it limits it by saying that
not more than one of them shall be the head of a Northern Ireland department",
the reverse of that is that two of them can be
persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine".
Is it wise that the Secretary of State should take powers to appoint two people who are not Members of the Assembly to exercise those other functions? Is that a wise use of flexibility in this context? May I put a hypothetical question to the Minister? Presumably it would be possible for the Secretary of State to appoint two Members under the new subsection (1)(b) who were defeated candidates in the election for the Assembly. Am I wrong in that assumption, or is the flexibility in the Bill so stupid as to allow defeated candidates for the Assembly not only to be transformed into the Assembly but somehow to become persons under paragraph (b)? I shall welcome the Minister's comments on that matter.
My hon. Friend drew my attention to the new subsection (6), which says:
If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that it is not possible to make an appointment which complies with the requirements of subsection (4) above he may make an appointment which does not comply with those requirements but any person so appointed shall not hold office for more than six months.
Again, that is a wide flexibility. I wonder how that subsection would affect the persons in subsection (1)(b).
I am sorry to press the Minister on these points of detail, but it is important to get them right before the gravy train sets out, and to know whether the gravy train will set out with a full complement of coaches or whether we add to it bit by bit as each station comes along on the way to its destination.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I remind the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) that
the Caravan starts for the Dawn of Nothing—oh, make haste!
In yesterday's debate the Secretary of State averred that debates under the guillotine procedure were commonly better than debates without a guillotine. It can hardly be said that today's experience has borne out his assertion. Nevertheless, we have one advantage today, and it is that we can hear the Government's case at an intermediate stage in the debate and have the benefit, at any rate before the debate comes to a close, of an opportunity to comment on their case and ask further questions.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for having set himself—even if he did not discharge it—the task of discharging the function—I must have been influenced by the language of paragraph (b)—of giving examples to illustrate the purpose of that paragraph. He started by saying that it could be used to appoint deputies. But then he stopped and simply went on to say that it could be used in other ways. That is somewhat curious, because when

we were discussing clause 1(2), which deals with proposals from the Assembly, on which these arrangements may eventually be erected, we found that they are to include
proposals as to the appointment under that section of a person to assist any person appointed as head of any such department.
The Secretary of State confirmed that he would expect the proposals in some cases to designate persons to be heads of Departments and assistants to those heads. Therefore, one would have expected the corresponding provision for appointments to occur here. However, instead of appointments being made for the assistance of persons appointed as heads—which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) seemed to be expecting—we have the far wider and completely undefined expression,
such other functions as he may determine".
Therefore, we are still left asking the Government what, besides the appointment of assistants to heads of Departments, they envisage that the Secretary of State may do under this power.
Was my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) right to suggest that the power might be used to create imaginary functions—Ministers without portfolios? Is that envisaged, in order to build up the so-called "cross-community Executive"? Colour seemed to be lent to that assumption by the Minister's use of the words "package" and "accommodation". If we are enabling the Secretary of State openly to create a number—up to seven without the use of his power of Order in Council—of bogus appointments in addition to heads of Departments, the Committee should be told that more candidly than it has hitherto.
The Minister's reference to the custom, which is quite normal on this side of the water and which prevails generally in Northern Ireland, where there is a more or less permanent majority and minority of a party character on a local government body, for the occupation of the ceremonial position of chairman or mayor to circulate or alternate between the parties was unacceptable. In the administration of those arrangements, it is not unusual for disagreements to arise. Nevertheless, the general desirability of such a sharing of the ceremonial aspects of local government life is just as much accepted in the Province as it is in Great Britain; and a very good thing too.
For the Minister to come along and say that it was done in Strabane, which shows that a power-sharing Executive can be constructed by a mix of members of different parties, returned upon different manifestos and for different fundamental objects, is a non sequitur of which he, above all others, must have been conscious even before: it was pointed out to him by the hon. Member for Epping, Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison).

Mr. William Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the position of chairman or mayor in Northern Ireland is not just ceremonial? In certain circumstances that individual has a casting vote, and in such a council, especially where there is, as in my local council, an eight to seven split on general Unionist/Republican lines, there is no possibility of such a post being given to the minor party.

Mr. Powell: Yes, I am well aware of that. The former hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West needs no reminding that exactly the same situation obtains on this


side of the water. It is an arrangement that works better and is more honoured in the observance where there is not a narrow party difference between the two sides constituting a local government body.
Whatever the circumstances in any council, it does nothing to support the Government's case for a power-sharing Executive. It simply shows that local government is ipso facto power sharing and that the framework for administrative devolution in Northern Ireland exists at the lowest level in the district councils. One needs only to create a similar framework at the higher level to deal with the other and major functions.
10.15 pm
The whole of a local authority is, ipso facto, the executive. It is the council itself that is the executive. Consequently, all the members of the council share power and participate in the executive. Of course, the different policies will be decided by majority voting. In so far as control of voting is at all consistent, there will be a consistency of policy on the different subjects that a local authority administers. However, that all rests on the ballot box. In local government, the result of the ballot box is faithfully represented in genuine power sharing in administration.
The example at which the Under-Secretary of State clutched reinforced his opponents' case instead of buttressing the Bill. The essential difference between an Executive and a local authority is shown by what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the formation of the Executive. He pointed out that under subsection (2) the Secretary of State forms an Executive—as it were a Cabinet—out of those appointed as Ministers, or in some cases parliamentary secretaries—as it were—under subsection (1).
The essence of such an Executive is its consistency and collective responsibility. A selection is made from among those who have been appointed as individuals to produce a given pattern of party representation. They are then told "It is expected of you that you shall act as an Executive and act upon the principle of collegiality and shared collective responsibility". Until it breaks down, the result will be exactly the same as the previous experiment in 1974. The Executive will do only things upon which there is no party disagreement. The Executive becomes lame because it cannot do anything which matters, which involves party differences or which brings into play the fundamental divergencies between those elected.
Therefore, the power-sharing Executive discloses that it is a prescription for failure. It fails either because it is unable to agree and act as an Executive or because it cannot function as an Executive over the whole area of the subjects of administration. The sole result of the debate has been to show up, once again, the inherent impracticability of the principle upon which the Secretary of State has based his Bill. Before we divide on the measure, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be a little more candid about the way in which paragraph (b) is intended to be used to promote the power-sharing composition of an eventual power-sharing Executive. We should at least be plain about that.

Mr. Fitt: I was reluctant to take part in the debate but I have been provoked into doing so by some of the remarks and inaccuracies of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
The Minister was right to draw the attention of the Committee to an agreement made recently by opposing political forces in Strabane. In only three councils in Northern Ireland has that happened. It has happened in Londonderry—but not recently because of a disagreement—in Strabane, and in Newry with its overwhelmingly nationalist or Catholic majority which has decided to appoint a member of the DUP to the chair. The other 23 Unionist councils do not share power with the minority. They keep to themselves anything that is going. Where the Democratic Unionists have a majority, they hold the chairmanship and the deputy chairmanship.
Let us follow the logic of the Minister's argument. We must remember that Strabane is a cockpit of dissension and close to the border. Atrocious murders have taken place there and and there are all the consequences of heightened tension, animosity and hostility between the communities. Despite that, accommodation was found in the council. Newry is another border town where murder after murder has taken place. The population of the town condemned the murders and found accommodation between extreme Republicans and the other extreme, the Democratic Unionist Party.
I support what the Minister said. When the election took place in 1973 there was no guarantee that I, as leader of the SDLP, would find any accommodation with that brand of Unionism led by the late Brian Faulkner. There was no guarantee that the SDLP would find any accommodation with the Alliance Party, because a significant section of my party regarded the Alliance Party as an offshoot of the Ulster Unionist Party. On many issues the Alliance and Unionist Parties stood solidly against SDLP proposals.
On many occasions the then Secretary of State, now the Home Secretary, was called in to chair discussions among the three political elements. It was not easy. Many compromises had to be made. Compromise is not easy in Northern Ireland politics, but after many hours of discussion and to-ing and fro-ing, we agreed. The Secretary of State did not have carrots or sticks. The people involved in the discussions were the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people. They tried desperately to reach agreement, and finally they did.
Those representatives did not bring the Executive to an end after five short months. The Executive was toppled because of what the paramilitary organisations did on the streets, because of the illegal organisations on the Protestant loyalist side and because of the bombing and killing by the IRA. That brought the Executive to an end.
I accept the suspicion voiced by the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Secretary of State's power to make appointments may be used to make appointments on a power-sharing or cross-community basis.

Mr. Powell: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the example of local government, does he think that the appointment of Councillor Graham of the DUP to the chairmanship of the Newry and Mourne council will make any difference to the political decisions taken by that council?

Mr. Fitt: The newly elected chairman has already said that there may be times when the majority of council


members will wish to participate in cross-border economic discussions and that he must not attend those meetings. It may not have a specific effect, but the chairman's political allegiance will prevent him from acting wholeheartedly on every occasion with the majority of council members.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and the right hon. Member for Down, South have repeatedly said that all members of local authorities wish to have increased powers. That is a palpable untruth. They do not. SDLP members, who are in the majority on Londonderry council, and their supporters, who are in the majority in Newry and Strabane, do not want increased powers because they know what happened previously. They have not forgotten the strictures of the Cameron report, which clearly stated that the maladministration in local authorities was largely responsible for the beginning of the civil rights movement.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I did not put the point in those terms. The Association of Local Authorities has had its first conference. I have not yet seen the full report because it has not reached the Library. Did SDLP councillors at that conference dissent from the main view that was put forward by the vice-president calling for an enhancement of the role of local government in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Fitt: I am no longer party to the counsels of the SDLP, but that party and all other nationalist political forces in Northern Ireland would bitterly oppose any attempt to restore powers to local authorities. Only three authorities can ever hope to be represented by the nationalist minority. The other 23 will continue to have Unionist majorities. The SDLP councils in Londonderry, Newry and Strabane may say that they wish to have increased powers because they are in the majority, but there are 23 other local authorities in Northern Ireland with permanent Unionist majorities.

Mr. Dunlop: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time. I have been provoked into telling the truth to try to clear up some of the things that should not have been said.

Mr. William Ross: What about Omagh?

Mr. Fitt: Omagh is a marginal case.

Mr. Ross: What about Magherafelt?

Mr. Fitt: There is no power sharing in Magherafelt.
Amendment No. 70 wishes to kill any hope of cross-community or power-sharing government. It wishes to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to make appointments that he believes will gain cross-community support and will be in the interests of the people. But the red herring that we do not need an Assembly because all members of local government are clamouring to co-operate is not true.

Mr. John Patten: I rose in my innocence half an hour to three-quarters of an hour ago to reply to what is sometimes described as a short but useful debate. Once I had resumed my place, some additional and interesting issues were raised and I am glad to have this opportunity to respond to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) asked a number of questions with his usual clarity. Under

full devolution there can be up to 13 members of the Administration, all but two of whom have to be Assembly Members. Only one of the heads of Department can be a non-Assembly Member. I direct my hon. Friend's attention to section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 as it will be amended, I trust, by paragraph 1 of schedule 2.
Why will there be 13 members of the Administration? Under full devolution there could be a Chief Executive and there will be six devolved Departments. The Assembly may wish to recommend that each head of Department should have an assistant. The Bill enables that to happen but it does not require it.
Secondly, I direct my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 5 of schedule 1, which deals with appointments under partial devolution. I direct his attention especially to sub-paragraphs (1)(a) and (b). The critical word is "Notwithstanding". The 1974 act makes provision for direct rule and provides that there cannot be arty appointments to any Northern Ireland Administration at present but notwithstanding that Act remaining in force there can be up to two appointments per Department under partial devolution.
My hon. Friend asked whether it was wise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have the power to appoint up to two people who are not Members of the Assembly. My answer is "Yes". That is because that power adds a certain dimension of flexibility into the arrangements and is another example of the flexibility about which I talked at considerable length earlier. I do pot propose to take up any more of the Committee's time on that. If I did so, I would only be repetitious.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) proceeded to ask "What functions might there be other than those within the one example that has been given of giving assistance to the heads of Department, at present of six Departments but possibly more in future should there be fission or possibly fewer should there be amalgamation, as there has recently been?" I shall offer a few possibilities. There might be a Leader of the Assembly. There might be a Minister or Ministers with proper functions other than heading one of the six Departments. We have a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a Lord Privy Seal and a Lord President of the Council, for example, who all have Cabinet status and functions other than those of being a head of Department. There is a range of possibilities on which the right hon. Gentleman could doubtless speculate of Ministers being appointed to perform functions other than those of heading a Department.
There might also be a deputy head of the Executive. That is another possibility. I am sure that the possibilities could be multiplied. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press me to multiply them, because I have exhausted my powers of imagination in giving a few examples.
The right hon. Gentleman accused me—these accusations hurt sometimes—of introducing a non-sequitur into the debate when I referred to the excellent example of Strabane and the good, sound accommodation which seemed to have been brought about between the SDLP and the Official Unionist Party in dividing the chairmanship and vice-chairmanship of the council. We have had other examples in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).

Mr. Dunlop: I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to remind him that there is another council, Omagh district council, in which Mr. Liam McDaid of the SDLP used his casting vote to vote himself back into the chair. The same happened in Magherafelt district council, in which Mr. Paddy Sweeney, also in the SDLP, used his casting vote to vote himself back to office. Therefore, there are examples where that high-souled action of the SDLP does not obtain, as it did in Strabane, which the Minister quoted.

Mr. Patten: I do not have the same detailed knowledge as the hon. Gentleman about those two examples, although doubtless those actions were within the rules of order of those two councils.
I was trying to rebut the cruel accusations from the right hon. Member for Down, South that there had been a non sequitur in my speech. I had not suggested that, simply because that accommodation had been reached in Strabane, one could extend from that a chain of a causality that would say, because that happens in Strabane, it will happen in the Assembly. All I was saying was that the example of Strabane, which fortunately was added to in the speech made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, gives me hope that those accommodations that can be reached at local level might be reached at the Assembly when it sits for its first meeting, we hope, this autumn.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will an Oxonian permit a mere Cantabrigian to observe in a matter of logic that his two cases are not in pan materia? The circumstances in local government are not comparable to the circumstances of the formation of an administrative Executive responsible to an Assembly. That is where the non sequitur arises.

Mr. Patten: I do not accept that point. If I were unaware of the right hon. Gentleman's abstemious habits, I would suggest that we met at a later stage in another part of the building in order to carry the discussion further. Although I have spent 10 years in the university of Oxford, I, like the right hon. Gentleman, was educated at the university of Cambridge. I maintain that there is no non sequitur in my example. I used it as an illustration of the fact that walking around the political landscape of Northern Ireland were people of good will who could come to those accommodations across the community. It is that strand of good will that gives me great hope that the Assembly will make rapid progress.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 110.

Division No. 238]
[10.40 pm


AYES


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Farr, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Budgen, Nick
Kilfedder, James A.


Dunlop, John
Knight, Mrs Jill

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 9, line 30, at end add—

'Presiding Officer of the Assembly'

2A. In section 24 of the Constitution Act after "elect" in subsection (1) insert "in accordance with subsection (1A)", and after subsection (1) insert—
(1A) the election shall be by single transferable vote from a list of three or more persons submitted to the Assembly by the Secretary of State, having satisfied himself that each of them commands widespread acceptance throughout the community.'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may discuss the following:
New clause 3—Presiding Officer—
'The Secretary of State shall, at the beginning of each Assembly, appoint a Presiding Officer, who may or may not before appointment be a Member of the Assembly, and such Presiding Officer shall be a person who is, in the Secretary of State's opinion, likely to be acceptable to the Assembly and the community in general.'.
Amendment No. 97, in schedule 3, page 13, line 8, column 3, at end insert 'Section 24(1) and (2)'.

Mr. Dunn: The office of Presiding Officer will be one of the most influential, and perhaps powerful, offices in Northern Ireland, subordinate only to the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I appreciate that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act provides that such an officer shall be elected or appointed, but it is important that such a provision should be in the Bill so that we can be clear about how he is elected or appointed.
My personal view is that there should be some guarantee that the person holding that office has widespread acceptance in the community, and a straight majority vote election does not always obtain that result. It is important to obtain the general consent of the community, because the Presiding Officer will be able to appoint the chairmen of the various committees and, indeed, their deputies if the Assembly so recommends and the Secretary of State accepts. He will also be responsible for the composition and balance of the committees. That is why the Bill should contain the means to ensure that the functions are performed well. It should also ensure that the person who performs those functions faces the test of acceptability.
The Presiding Officer will have some power over how reports are gathered and in what order of priority they should be brought to the notice of the Secretary of State or this House. It is likely that in the initial stages the Presiding Officer will be responsible for recommending to Members of the Assembly how the specialist subcommittees are set up and how they should carry out the special tasks that may be allotted to them. For example, they may be asked to examine and report on various aspects of the structure of the Assembly, including its standing orders. They may even have a say in which proposals should be put to the Secretary of State or this House. We are talking of an office that will probably be responsible for so many things that, without the consent and general approval of the community, the task of the Presiding Officer will be almost impossible.
I am aware that impartiality will be called for in great measure. I am also aware of instances in which people of different political persuasions have met and come to accommodations—to adopt the word used in the discussion of an earlier amendment. As a result of such

accommodations, as we have heard this evening, it has been possible for someone to serve as the chairman of a local authority and to discharge his functions to the satisfaction of other members of the authority and of the people in the area. But such accommodations are few in number. Unfortunately, the practice is not widespread.
I do not wish to tread the path taken by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), but it is a known fact that in very few councils with an absolute Unionist majority have such accommodations ever been made. I understand the reasons for that, but we should bear them in mind when we are directing our attention to the office of Presiding Officer.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concanrion) and his hon. Friends, in their amendments, have a similar idea to mine but suggest a different means of achieving it. They would prefer to take away from the majority vote of the Assembly the election of the Presiding Officer. They would prefer that responsibility to be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. I understand the logic of that proposal, because the Secretary of State would be answerable to this House for that appointment. I do not go completely along that road, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in other circumstances I might have taken it.
I understand the principles that the right hon. Gentleman wants to see embodied in the Bill, with the guarantee that the Secretary of State will be answerable to this House, but I should like to introduce a further element and that is that the Secretary of State should be enabled to produce a short list of people and the Assembly should then be allowed, on the basis of its knowledge and experience, to choose the person it would prefer, by majority vote. I should not go as far as to insist that it should be done by means of the single transferable vote, although most of my hon. Friends would prefer that system. If there is another means of doing it, with the general consent of this House, I should be prepared to forgo the single transferable vote system.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am not quite sure of the hon. Gentleman's point. Why would it be necessary to employ the single transferable vote system? Surely under such a system, when only one person is being elected, the quota will become half plus one, which is virtually the same as electing someone by a majority vote.

11 pm

Mr. Dunn: It is an alternative voting system. I tried to say that I should not go to the stake for it, but the majority of my colleagues feel that this would be a fairer system. If at the end of the day no candidate came out with a clear majority—which could happen—the single transferable vote system might resolve the dilemma. But I shall not tread that road, and I hope the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will not press me too far down it.
The person chosen should have the general support of Members in the Assembly and those whom the Assembly is serving. We would not wish the nomination and election to be the sole prerogative of the Assembly. The Secretary of State should be involved because he will have to come back and answer to the House.
I put the amendment to the Committee. I shall try to answer any points that are made, but I ought to give notice that I shall press the amendment to a Division at the end of the debate.

Mr. Concannon: The very fact that I am speaking to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) means that I shall also be speaking about new clause 3. The official Opposition would like to register their vote on new clause 3 at the opportune time, but I doubt whether the opportune time will come this evening. When the Division is called, we shall probably for the first time on this unique Bill see all the Members on the Government side of the Committee in one Lobby.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that there might not be the opportunity tonight for a separate Division upon the new clause. Is that absolutely certain?

Mr. Concannon: It is not absolutely certain. I think it will depend upon the passage of the amendment. As I understand it, we shall not be able to vote on new clause 3 until we have dispensed with amendment No. 93, which is 10 amendments away. The Opposition would like to reserve their vote for new clause 3. I am making the point that that is what we would do if we reach new clause 3.
We should set out what the Committee has achieved so far. We have established that cross-community support is of paramount importance to political progress in Northern Ireland. We wish the Bill to be given the best start it can have.
According to the Bill, the first thing the Assembly will have to do is to elect a Presiding Officer. The method of selection is laid down in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, section 24, which reads as follows:
(1) The Assembly elected under the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973, and every Assembly subsequently elected, shall as its first business elect one of its members to be the presiding officer of the Assembly.
(2) The person so elected shall hold office until the dissolution of the Assembly unless he previously resigns or ceases to be a member of the Assembly or is removed from office by resolution of the Assembly; and if the presiding officer vacates his office before the expiration of his term of office the Assembly shall elect another person to fill his place for the remainder of that term.
I recall that the status and functions of the Presiding Officer of the 1973 Assembly were similar to those of the Speaker of the House of Commons. He regulated debates, interpreted standing orders and officiated in other day-to-day proceedings of the Assembly. As far as can be ascertained, he was not formally involved in the selection and appointment of the Northern Ireland Executive. Under section 8 of the 1973 Act the power to appoint the Executive lay solely with the Secretary of State.
The 1973 Presiding Officer did not have the absolute power to appoint the chairmen of the consultative committees. Consequently, he had limited discretion to appoint committees. It should be remembered that the Executive was appointed shortly after the 1973 Assembly was elected.
The Assembly proposed in the Bill will have an existence, regardless of whether powers are devolved to Northern Ireland. In the first instance, and probably for some time, the Assembly will undertake its consultative, scrutinising and deliberative functions without any devolution of powers.
Therefore, the position of the Presiding Officer is crucial. He will be seen as the symbolic head of the Assembly and of the Northern Ireland element of the Administration. Prior to devolution he will, of necessity,

exercise the functions of Speaker and Leader of the House and may undertake some of the work left to our Whips' Offices. In addition, he will have much wider discretion to appoint chairmen and deputy chairmen of consultative committees.
It should be noted that, pending devolution, the committees will be much more important and influential than were the Assembly committees of 1973–74. During the recent debate on the White Paper "A Framework for Devolution", the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) expressed reservations about the potential powers of the Presiding Officer. Reservations were also outlined by a number of hon. Members in debates on clause 4 of the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Crosby said that the election of the Presiding Officer by the Assembly would provide a "thin basis" of consent for one who would be a combination of Speaker, Leader of the House and Chief Whip. He will also have the power to appoint chairmen of committees and two deputy chairmen. He must be seen to have the support of both communities and all the major parties in the Assembly. That is very important.
The new clause stems from my experience as a Minister in Northern Ireland when the Labour Government established a Constitutional Convention in 1974. It had a limited life—six months and a possible extension—and a specific purpose, which was to submit to Parliament plans for the future government of Northern Ireland. Paragraph 53 of the White Paper on the Convention referred to the chairman:
The Government proposes that there should be an independent Chairman of the Convention, a person of high standing and impartiality from Northern Ireland. He will not be a member of the Convention. The appointment will be made by Her Majesty the Queen.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who was Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, at the time of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, on Second Reading of the Bill stressed the importance of cross-community support for the chairman and said that his appointment would be made after consultation with all parties. A senior Northern Ireland judge, Sir Robert Lowry, was appointed to the position.
We believe that the provisions for electing a Presiding Officer for the 1973 Assembly are inadequate for the new Assembly. He will be the most prominent individual in the Assembly. Not only will he have more powers and duties than his 1973 counterpart, but he will hold a symbolic and important position. Prior to any devolution, the Presiding Officer will be the leading member of the Assembly in any disputes that might arise. In the absence of an Executive, public attention will be keenly focused on the decisions and appointments of the Presiding Officer. It is therefore vital, in our view, that he is seen to be independent and impartial. The system of selection laid down in the 1973 Act is unlikely to achieve this. The Opposition propose that the provisions of the 1973 Act relating to the selection of the Presiding Officer be replaced by our new clause 3.
The purpose is to introduce an impartial, independent and acceptable person into the most prominent position in the Assembly. It is essential that the Presiding Officer should be above the politics of the Assembly if petty quarrels over appointments and placemen are to be avoided. As matters stand, the Unionist block in the 78 or 85-member Assembly will be in the region of 66 per cent. Therefore, the Unionist block will decide the choice of


Presiding Officer. I am not alluding to any single individual, but I have advised my hon. Friends on many occasions that, whatever they see or read about certain individuals in Northern Ireland, there are others more greatly to be feared should they succeed in gaining such a position. I am thinking of some of the lieutenants down the line in some of the parties. What price cross-community support if this happens?
If the first action of the Unionist block is to use its vote to place its own choice in that position of high trust, I do not see much chance of the minority within the Assembly accepting the placement. It was with this in mind that the Opposition tabled new clause 3 to try and give the Bill the best possible start.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am sure that the Opposition have studied the role of the Speaker in the old Stormont Parliament. I do not believe that Opposition Members in Northern Ireland at that time felt that the Speaker discriminated against them. Yet, he was elected by the Unionist majority. My party was the official Opposition at the close of Stormont. We had no complaints against the Speaker. Is it not true that the person who eventually takes on the Chair fills the role that is expected of him?

Mr. Concannon: I would not be so worried if the Presiding Officer were to be the Speaker of the Assembly, but that is not so. He will be much more than the Speaker. He will have powers of patronage, of selection, of placing people in various committees. If he were acting only as Speaker, the hon. Gentleman would be right, but the Presiding Officer has a much greater role.

Mr. Robinson: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The person who eventually occupies the position takes himself out of his party role and puts himself into an independent or impartial position and acts accordingly.

Mr. Concannon: That is not how I read it. If the hon. Gentleman could give me a guarantee from his party, and if the other part of the Unionist Party could give the same guarantee, that it wanted someone who was acceptable to the 78 or 85 Members of the Assembly, that would go a long way to assure me, but I know that part of the Unionist Party in this place could not give me that guarantee. The only guarantee would be something to be written into the Bill, as was in the Convention report. There would then be cross-community support for whoever became the Presiding Officer. The matter is too important to be left to a straight vote if we accept the Government's White Paper and their view that cross-community support in Northern Ireland politics is the only way forward.
I have put much time and effort into studying the Bill, although I may not have made many speeches. I do not want it to fall apart at the first hurdle on the appointment of a Presiding Officer. If it does, it will be a disaster for us all.
Of course, I am in some difficulty on amendment No. 127, because it contains some words which I do not like. If I advise my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment, I am voting for the principle contained therein and in new clause 3. Unless my persuasive tongue has induced the Secretary of State to accept the principle—

Mr. James A. Dunn: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that was in my mind. I kept a flexible

attitude towards a single transferable vote. I said that that concern motivated both of us. If our methods were different, it was not for the want of good intent.

Mr. Concannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. We worked well together for a long time on matters concerning Northern Ireland, and we seem to be carrying on that relationship. I hope that he will not mind if we use his amendment as a vehicle for voting on the principle of the Bill, because it is obvious that we shall not now reach new clause 3.
I hope that it will not be necessary to vote on the issue, because it will probably have the effect of driving all Government Members into one Lobby, which will be a new experience on this Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the matter very carefully, because I am sure that he does not want the Bill, into which he has put so much work, to fall at the first hurdle when the Assembly is elected.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I am overjoyed that, for the first time in the whole miserable course of this sad Bill, which has caused me many hours of mental anguish, there is a distinct possibility that I shall be in my normal place with my friends in the Lobby against these amendments.
I shall direct my few remarks in particular to amendment No. 127. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) on his ingenuity. He has composed a paragraph which contains more controversy per line, suggestion and phrase than any other four lines that I have ever read. In the first line, we see the phrase that makes strong men quail and weaker men turn to drink, "single transferable vote".
The hon. Gentleman has said that he will not go to the barricades on that. I do not know whether he can be influenced to withdraw it immediately. I have the strongest possible objection to a "single transferable vote". It is a clever means of producing confusion and is far from conducive to producing a clear-cut and straightforward decision.
I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) say a moment or two ago that the matter was too important to be left to a straight vote. Do we not deal with matters of importance in the House? Is nothing that we discuss here of sufficient importance? Never do we have to resort to a "single transferable vote" in the House.

Mr. Concannon: I qualified that by saying, as does the White Paper, that things are different in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Lady does not accept that, she does not accept the Bill or the views of the Government. That is fair enough. Those of us who have worked and lived in Northern Ireland for some considerable time know, as does the Secretary of State, that Northern Ireland is different and needs different solutions.

Mrs. Knight: I certainly accept that things are different in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to think that I am against the Bill, but that is neither here nor there. One of my objections to the Bill is that throughout it we consistently put Northern Ireland in a inferior position to that of the House and the country. That I cannot accept.
Let me return to the wording of this most extraordinary amendment. It says gaily that


the election shall be by single transferable vote from a list of three or more persons".
How many more? Ten, 15, 50? Why three? Is there something magic about the figure three? If there are to be more, why do we not say how many more? It does make a great deal of difference. I should not have thought that it was acceptable to have such an extraordinarily vague suggestion of anywhere between three and 300 persons whose names may be on the list.
We come to the next star-studded line. Those persons' names shall be
submitted to the Assembly by the Secretary of State".
What would the House feel if it was told that it was not entitled even to consider possible candidates for Speaker; that hon. Members were not competent to decide who should stand for that position? I cannot accept that.
I accept that the powers of the Presiding Officer will be wide. If they cannot be fielded by persons within the Assembly, what calibre of person will we get as general Members? I could not accept that for the House, and I am blowed if I shall accept it for the Assembly.
Who will submit the names to the Secretary of State? Will he pick them out of a hat? Are self-appointed people to come along? They may be, as in some of our elections, people seeking publicity. Even pop stars have put themselves up for election to the House. At £150, it is a cheap way of obtaining a large amount of publicity that would not be had otherwise. Will names be suggested by one person, more than one person, or a committee? Will there be a 70 per cent. majority from some mythical place to say whether those persons have some reason for having their names put forward? The whole thing is so extraordinarily woolly.
When the names drop like manna from heaven on the Secretary of State, he must satisfy himself that each of them commands widespread acceptance. How does he do that? As far as I can see they will not have had to submit themselves—certainly not according to the amendment—to the electorate.

Viscount Cranborne: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might define or judge "widespread acceptance" in the same way as he would define cross-community support under clause 2?

Mrs. Knight: That is an interesting point. My right hon. Friend may well decide to that. The amendment does not exactly tell him to do that, but the poor man will find it difficult to sort out how to meet the conditions of the amendment if—God forbid—it is passed.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: If the person has widespread support, why have a single transferable vote system? If there is widespread support, there will also be widespread support from the Assembly.

Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is another aspect to this extraordinary provision. I cannot imagine that it has been thought through properly by those who subscribe to it. The widespread acceptance must be throughout the community. We are not even sure which community we are talking about. Are we talking about the community in Belfast, the community in Ulster, the community of Unionists, or what? Why should that position have to have such a measure of

acceptance—again, I do not know how it will be judged—when the person involved has to be some sort of Speaker?
It is vital that the Presiding Officer should have the widespread support of those in the Assembly. Anyone with the particular and special qualities that make a good Speaker will be best known for them by those over whom he will preside. The community will not know how firm he is the Chair. It has no knowledge of how good he will be when dealing with what may, from time to time, be a recalcitrant Assembly. It is not unknown in Northern Ireland for little fights to pop up from time to time. The Presiding Officer will have to have almost as much talent as you, Mr. Armstrong, so constantly display to fascinated Members.
The amendment is nonsense and rubbish from start to finish. Hallelujah, I feel certain that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will be with us in the Lobby to vote against it.

Mr. Fitt: The case put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is not as clear-cut as she would have us believe. I shall take a few minutes to draw her attention to the fact that the situation in Northern Ireland is difficult and quite unlike that found here. The Secretary of State should not underestimate the amendment's tremendous importance, whether or not he agrees with its wording.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) said that he would not stick closely to the amendment's wording. He sought to establish the principle that the Presiding Officer of the newly elected Northern Ireland Assembly must have great support within the confines of the Assembly and of the Northern Ireland community. I have several years' experience of the House of Commons at Stormont. I was a member of it for 10 years. At that time the Speaker was the late Sir Norman Stronge, who was brutally assassinated. The House of Commons at Stormont had all the trappings of this House. Those elected were elected as Members of a Northern Ireland Parliament.
11.30 pm
It was a very different Northern Ireland before 1972 when Stormont was abolished. The Unionist Party had a vast majority in the House. It had 38 or 40 out of the 52 Members. The 12 Opposition Members came from four or five different parties. It was possible for the Speaker to be extra generous with such a small and divided Opposition. That Opposition would never be a danger to the governing party.

Mr. Molyneaux: They were almost never there.

Mr. Fitt: I accept that. Many were absent. One of the reasons was that it was such a frustration to be an Opposition Member. After the next election my right hon. and hon. Friends in this House could be in Government and right hon. and hon. Members at present in Government could be in Opposition. That is always possible here, but it was never a possibility in Northern Ireland. A Unionist Government took control in 1922 and won each election because of the in-built Protestant, Loyalist majority created in 1922. That majority was in power from 1922 until Stormont was abolished by the then Conservative Government in 1972. The small Opposition were never a danger to the Government party. They would


never sit on the Government side. It was a one-party State. Ministers did not even have to listen to Opposition arguments.
I remember the Speaker, Norman Stronge, going out of his way to be generous to the small beleaguered Opposition. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that the Opposition were almost never there. On many days Government Members were not there either. In debate after debate only four or five Members were present. The hon. Gentleman cannot condemn the Opposition alone.
Hansard, newspaper reports and television clips prove that on the first day after we were elected to the Assembly, a combination of Members of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and then then Official Unionist Party voted for the Presiding Officer, Mr. Nat Minford. He was elected by a majority of votes. Pandemonium broke out. Members indulged in fisticuffs. People beat each other up in the corridors. The Presiding Officer—the Speaker—adjourned the House and a Member of the DUP, the Reverend William Beattie, proposed that he should be the Speaker. We had another election for a Speaker, so the House had two Speakers in one day. It was a shambles, and it continued in that way for several weeks.
When the Assembly met the next day, Members not in the coalition sat on the Government side and had to be removed by the police. That was a bad start to the Assembly. Although the Speaker had the support of the House and of a combination of three parties, he did not have the support of those who were bitterly opposed to the Assembly.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does that not confirm my repeated pleas to the Secretary of State to amend the Bill so that he can attend the Assembly to act as a moderating influence?

Mr. Fitt: I did not believe that the hon. Member for Antrim, South would ever put forward such an argument. I waited for such an interjection from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who always argues that Northern Ireland cannot govern itself. I do not accept that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) referred to the Convention, the chairman of which was the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. That was a difficult and controversial period, during which we were trying to reach a conclusion. Any one who saw the Lord Chief Justice in the Chair will realise the tremendous job that he did in trying to hold the Convention together.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston seemed to be aghast at the proposal for a single transferable vote to elect Members of the Assembly. Whether she wishes it or not, successive Governments have sanctioned the single transferable vote for all elections in Northern Ireland, except elections to the House of Commons. The Assembly will be elected by that means. If the single transferable vote can be used to elect local authorities, the Assembly, the Convention and the newly created Assembly, it is nothing new to use that means for the election of a Speaker.

Mrs. Knight: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks with care. However, I imagine that the first Speaker of the Assembly—whom the hon. Gentleman said was first-class—was not elected by the single transferable vote but was chosen from a list submitted by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman

gave us a colourful description of what must have beer a horrendous Assembly. Neither of the Speakers, who both seemed to be disasters, was elected by the single transferable vote, nor has the hon. Gentleman made it clear that had they been so elected they would have been more effective. What we are talking about now is not the system by which the Members will be elected, but how the Speaker will be elected.

Mr. Fitt: I realise what the hon. Lady is trying to say. It is not new to have a single transferable vote in elections in Northern Ireland. The second Speaker in the Assembly was elected by the single transferable vote.
I should advise the Secretary of State that Northern Ireland still has the Stormont building, which is regarded by the people, especially the Unionists, as the place where their Parliament was. Others in the minority community never regarded it as their Parliament. Many Loyalists did not regard it as their Parliament, just as they did not regard the RUC as their police force. That was a Unionist belief.
We are jealous of the terms that we use about each other. The right hon. Member for Down, South bitterly resents Members of the European Assembly calling themselves Members of the European Parliament. There is some justification for that. However, Assembly Members will not wish to call themselves Assemblymen. There were many discussions about what they should be called. The Presiding Officer will wish to be called Mr. Speaker and the chairmen of the Departments will wish to be called Ministers, as they were in the previous Assembly.
That is because Stormont has some of the trappings and atmosphere of Westminster, which is something that the Secretary of State will have to take on board. It was one of the greatest issues to face the Assembly's standing orders committee. It decided that the Presiding Officer should be referred to as Mr. Speaker and that the heads of Departments should be referred to as Ministers. The late Brian Faulkner was called the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. It was understood that those titles had no value in law in the House of Commons.
Against that background, it may be that no one from the ranks of the 85 who are elected to the Assembly will have the support of a sufficient majority to enable him to conduct the affairs of the Assembly with the support of that House. The effect of the amendment is to say "If that is so, the Secretary of State should have the right to appoint someone from outside to preside over the Assembly's deliberations." There are those in Northern Ireland, such as the Lord Chief Justice, who would have the support of the community outside but who would not taint their hands with politics as we know them in Northern Ireland. I am sure that someone could be found outside the ranks of the Assembly to be appointed to the Chair by the Secretary of State to enable the Assembly to find its feet.
There will be difficulties—I have had experience of them—in the opening weeks of the Assembly. When the votes are declared and the deposits are returned euphoria will abound, but that euphoria will not be in Stormont. Individuals will want to assert their will or the will of their parties, in the newly created Assembly. It will be some days—it may be weeks or months—before a consensus can be found that will allow the Assembly to look to the future.
I agree with the hon. Member for Edgbaston that I do not have all the answers, but nor has she. No one has all the answers. The amendment seeks to tell the Secretary of


State that at the outset of this political venture in Northern Ireland, which we all hope will have some success, a great deal of deliberation and consent should be built around the newly created President of the Assembly. I urge the Secretary of State to use whatever means he can to ensure that the right person gets the job, which will be one of the most important in the new Assembly's structure.

Mr. Chapman: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I hope that whoever is elected Presiding Officer, by whatever means, is a person who is willing to let the office make the man. I hope also that that man or woman will be able to act and to take decisions, inasmuch as it is in his or her power, in the interests of Ulster as a whole.
The amendment was eloquently moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). Although he said that he was not entirely committed to the single transferable vote system, that is part of the amendment and I must comment on it. My main argument is very much against having the STV system, as a general proposition, and certainly for electing the Presiding Officer of the Assembly.
I know that there are various forms of proportional representation. For all I know, there may be various forms of STV. If one has an alternative vote to the traditional first-past-the-post vote, instead of a person being elected who is most liked by most people, whether or not most people are more or less than 50 per cent. of the total electorate, the person who is elected under STV is the person who is least disliked by most people. I do not believe that that is a fairer system, a more democratic system or, and perhaps more fundamentally, that it will solve the problem that Opposition Members seem to imagine. The STV system is more likely to cause disillusionment and disagreement among the elected Members.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I say to the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity that the reason why that was part of the recommendation in the amendment is that the system is already operating in Northern Ireland. We took that as the basic guideline. I thought that I had made myself clear. The Secretary of State may say that there is another method, and that we can consider it on Report. I would accept that, but I wanted to argue the point.

Mr. Chapman: I understand that point of view, but I must address myself to the terms of the amendment. Whether or not we think that it is good to have an STV system for electing Members to the Assembly—I have grave reservations about that—having elected people to the Assembly on that system, it does not follow that the best method of electing the Presiding Officer is by the STV system. I rest my case on that.
I finish with one example because there is much misunderstanding. There seems to be an easy answer, that we can change the electoral system to solve the problem. In the 1945 general election in the United Kingdom, we had university seats. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will confirm this, for I do not know whether all the elections for the university seats were conducted by the STV system, but in one or two university seats that system was used. In one of those elections—I

think at Edinburgh university—the person who started bottom of the poll in the first round was elected in the end. That may have been an exception, but it happened. A great many people would feel that that was an undemocratic and unfair result, so they would be suspicious of the system of election.
I ask my hon. Friends to resist amendment No. 127. It may have been born of sincerity—I am sure it was—but it will cause many problems that we could not begin to tackle, including some of the deeper problems that the hon. Member for Belfast, West and others mentioned.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I ask the Secretary of State to follow the advice from my party not to accept the amendment. That is a forlorn hope because the advice that has come from these Benches has not been accepted by the Government. However, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will heed the voice of Ulster Unionists.
If what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said is in any way correct, why try to get an Assembly going in Northern Ireland if we are such baddies? If the amendments have been put forward in the hope of making sure that Official Unionists do not act in a worse manner than they did before, it would seem to be a forlorn hope. The leader of my party, in an undertone, suggested that Santa Claus might be an acceptable candidate. I wonder whether Gabriel would be?
Apart from the history, which has been related, of an abstentionist policy that set off on the wrong foot, we have missed the indirect tribute that the hon. Member for Belfast, West paid to two distinguished Speakers of the Northern Ireland House of Commons and Assembly who were strong Unionists who did not abuse their power. It would be wrong for the committee to think that they treated the Opposition benignly because there was not much of an Opposition. Sir Norman Stronge's character was such that he would have acted as a gentleman to all people. He would have defended the rights of Members and of the House of Commons.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that private money has been raised to erect a monument to Sir Norman Stronge at Stormont?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman drawing our attention to that fact. I was aware of it. I am delighted, because Sir Norman Stronge gave a lifetime of service to the community, not only in politics but in the British Legion and other organisations. We appreciate the tribute.
I shall deal with the election of a Presiding Officer. It seems that there is a distinction between the role of Speaker and Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer's duties are restricted and there are pressures upon him to conform to rules. I should not like the Secretary of State to follow any further the proposed new subsections to the Constitution Act, which would allow King Arthur Scargill to be appointed to the Government as a non-elected Member of the House. It seems that an elected Assembly, which is asked to advise the Secretary of State, is being circumscribed by the Secretary of State being asked to nominate those who should see that he gets the right advice. That eats at the facade of democracy that is being foisted upon Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Could the hon. Gentleman give an example of any similar Government or parliamentary


Assembly where the Speaker has not been an elected Member of that particular body? Does he share my feeling that it is a terrible indictment of the people who will be elected to the Assembly to suggest that none of them would be capable of holding the respect and support of the House over which he might rule?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I do not claim to have an exhaustive knowledge, but I suspect that they do something like that in another place. There are Members of this place who are not sure that that other place should continue to exist.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I believe that there have been colonial legislatures in which the Presiding Officer has been appointed from outside the Assembly.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Possibly. In banana colonies that might happen, but traditionally the Speaker has been appointed to safeguard the rights of the House against the monarchy. In Northern Ireland now the powers of the monarchy are virtually devolved on the Secretary of State. The proposal is for him to nominate the person who might be chosen by the House as the presiding officer. That is contrary to tradition and to British democracy.
As we have gone further into the debate the House has begun belatedly to recognise that the road on which we have been launched is leading to casualties. Unionists rescued the 1922 Act which was designed to take us out of the kingdom. One would like to think that we shall do so again. But the House will be responsible for the mistakes made in the legislation and not the Ulster Unionists, who have guided matters in another direction.

Mr. Michael Brown: I apologise to the Committee for not being present at the beginning of the proceedings this afternoon. I was in my constituency this morning attending the Lincolnshire Show, but I intended to be here for the first group of amendments, two of which are in my name. Unfortunately, the show was bogged down in mud and my car was stuck in a quagmire. As I tried to get it out, I realised that the Secretary of State might find himself in a quagmire if he proceeded with the Bill.
Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was not there to assist me, as he usually is. I have the privilege of representing his daughter, who has married into a prominent farming family, in my constituency, but she, too, was not there to help me.
I do not disagree with the intent of the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He wishes the Presiding Officer to be someone who can command the support and confidence of all Members of the Assembly. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was a Member of the Convention. He illustrated why he did not wish to see the situation that he talked of repeated, but I am not sure that new clause 3 is the answer.
I am not sure that the Secretary of State making suggestions about the appointment of the Presiding Officer would ensure that all the Members of the Assembly had the protection of and confidence in the Presiding Officer, so that from day one the Assembly had a fair crack of the whip, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West would wish. How do we know that whatever is to be imposed—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) put forward a suggestion purely for discussion—albeit with cross-community devices to ensure support, will provide the real

answer? I do not believe that it is possible for the Secretary of State or anyone else, without the wisdom of Solomon, to suggest for the position someone who may not even be in the Assembly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, it is inconceivable that the Presiding Officer should not be a Member of the Assembly. I should be happier with new clause 3 if it did not contain the words "may or may not". It would stand more chance of being seriously considered by my right hon. Friend had the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the person concerned should be a Member of the Assembly.

12 midnight

Mr. Concannon: That phrase was included in case a Member of the Assembly fitted the description and was acceptable to all. There is a recent precedent for this. That is exactly what happened during the Northern Ireland Convention. The then Secretary of State selected an outside person to run the 78-Member Convention. That person did the job very well and got it off to a good start. All I ask is that the Assembly gets off to a good start. In whichever way it is done, it must be acceptable to the Members.

Mr. Brown: That is fair enough. The right hon. Gentleman says that someone was eventually found who commanded the support of all the Members of the Convention. I am not sure whether that can be done again.
My right hon. Friend is setting much store on the fact that the people of Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to take their own decisions. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Presiding Officer will have duties other than that of Speaker. I therefore acknowledge the importance of the Presiding Officer.
As the job of Presiding Officer is so politically important, surely the Assembly founders at the first fence. If the Assembly is to be denied the opportunity of taking this first important political decision, we are admitting here and now what some of us already believe, that it is not possible for it to govern Northern Ireland.
Here is an opportunity to prove that people such as myself are wrong and that the Assembly is capable of taking real decisions and power. It should therefore be allowed to take the first important political decision over the Presiding Officer. However, according to the amendments, we shall circumscribe the Assembly's powers right from the word go. Those who support the Bill have said that we should give the people of Northern Ireland the right to elect their own Members and the right to take their decisions, yet we are not allowing those Members to elect their own Presiding Officer.
If we cannot trust the elected Members to do that, I do not see how we can trust them to undertake any of the other obligations which the Bill, to a greater or lesser extent, will impose on them. The tabling of the new clause and the amendments shows that at the end of the day those who support the Bill do not trust the electorate in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield let slip just now that he thought that about 66 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly would be Unionist, to one degree or another. He is almost telling us that we might as well do without the ballot box in electing the Members to the Assembly.
The more that we debate the schedule and the Bill, and the extent to which the people of Northern Ireland, through


their elected representations, will be able to take their own decisions, and the more any element of election is reflected through the Assembly, with Members taking decisions on behalf of the Assembly, the more we find that those who support the Bill do not really trust the electorate. For that reason, I cannot support new clause 3.

Mr. William Ross: A certain amount has already been said on new clause 3 and a great deal more could be said on it, but I want to deal in particular with amendment No. 127, which is unadulterated rubbish and could have been tabled only by people who do not really know the practical outworkings of proportional representation.
Each political party in Northern Ireland has its own method of using the proportional representation system for the greatest benefit to itself. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will confirm that in many cases his party picks an extremely strong candidate, and that candidate is expected to get a very large personal vote, which is then transferred to other weaker political assets of the same party. There are some outstanding examples of it in the local government elections. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was himself the strong candidate for his party in his own area.
The end result is that the strong candidate can carry in two and on some occasions three other members of his party who received a mere fraction of the votes that he received. There is an outstanding case in my own constituency, where the chairman of the hon. Gentleman's party received about 3,000 votes in the local government elections and carried in with him persons who received in some case 100 or fewer than 100 votes. That is one way of operating the single transferable vote system.
A second method is the one that is generally used by the Unionist Party. It is to try to spread equally over the number of candidates selected the votes that they expect to receive. To a great extent it is the luck of the draw who loses if there are not three quotas and there are three people.
The same can be true of the system used by the Democratic Unionist Party. But what is the effect of an STV election when there is but one position in contest? The end result of using the STV system in those circumstances is that the majority counts, and the person concerned is eventually elected by something akin to the simple majority system. If three people are put up, A, B and C, and everyone votes for the three, somebody has the lowest number of votes and so he goes out. His votes are then redistributed, and ultimately it is the person who has 51 per cent. of the votes who wins. Of course, if one of the three candidates gets 51 per cent. of the votes—or rather, one over the half—he is home and dry.

Mrs. Knight: Did the hon. Gentleman not notice that it could be more than three?

Mr. Ross: Yes; I appreciate that. But that is still immaterial. It just adds to the number of counts that have to be made before someone winds up with one over 50 per cent. of the votes. That is the only difference.
There are two ways in which that conclusion can be reached. One is by the STV system and the other is by a series of elections, eliminating the person who has the lowest number of votes until a stage is reached where there are only two people for one position. There is a third

method of election, in which the person with the highest number of votes wins on the first count. The plain truth is that nine times out of ten, no matter what system is used, the individual who starts out with the highest number of votes winds up with 51 per cent. It is very rare, and it needs a certain set of political circumstances which will not exist in the Assembly, for an individual other than the person with the highest number of votes initially to win.
That is one reason why the system set out in the amendment is rubbish. Another is that there is no meaning to STV or proportional representation where there is only one position. STV can make sense only where there is a minimum of three positions and preferably four or five. If there are more than that, it becomes so complex that it is utter nonsense. That is the nonsense of the STV system which so many hon. Members are prepared to see used in Ulster in an attempt to break the mould and to destroy the Unionist monolith. I hope that those who set off down that road are happy with the result. Very few in Ulster are.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I agree that the amendment must be rejected, not so much because the Government's arrangements as proposed in the Bill are so meritorious but because what is proposed by the amendment and the new clause is so much worse.
In Northern Ireland we will have on the one hand a system based upon devolution and on the other an attempt by the Government to obtain an Administration which has the support of the minority. That is an impossible target. No matter what the Government do, it will be impossible to attain it.
It is in the nature of a democracy that there should always be some sort of Opposition. Many countries find that Oppositions are inconvenient, annoying and get in the way of efficiency, so they try to do without them. But we have found that the existence of a minority in Opposition is the guarantee of our freedom and democracy. To try to dissipate that minority in some way by providing bribes and by jiggling with the electoral system is antidemocratic. We are falling into that trap.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We have fallen into it already.

Mr. Stanbrook: We have fallen into it already, as the right hon. Gentleman says, certainly since 1972, if not before.
One thing that could be said about the Stormont system is that it worked. No alternative system that has been devised or proposed by the central Government since has any chance of working, because of the basic objective of the central Government to try to get a local Administration in Northern Ireland which somehow crosses community barriers, has cross-community support, or complies with whatever phrase the Government use for the purpose of getting minority support for the majority, which must ultimately decide matters.
Having insisted on cross-community support for any proposals that the Assembly may make, we are discussing how we can hamstring the Assembly to produce a Presiding Officer who will be the product of support from both the majority and the minority. It is not possible to legislate in such detail in the face of passions, opinions, prejudices and ordinary political warfare.
12.15 am
The Bill provides that the Presiding Officer must, in the Secretary of State's opinion, command widespread


acceptance. The new clause provides that he must be acceptable to the community in general, and the amendment refers to widespread acceptance throughout the community. On that basis, how will we find someone who is satisfactory?
The amendments and the Government's proposals do not trust the normal democratic system to work in Northern Ireland. They do not trust the representatives of Northern Ireland people.

Mr. Joseph Dean: The hon. Gentleman must recall that a previous Conservative Government eroded the responsibilities of locally elected representatives in the local government reorganisation which was opposed by every local government organisation.
The NHS was also reorganised by that Government. They set up area health authorities with chairmen who were not answerable to anyone. Councillors were given only a small percentage of the seats on those authorities and the present Government have further reduced the places for councillors on the AHAs and on water authorities.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is interesting, but it is not related to the problem of how the Government can arrange matters in Northern Ireland to secure acceptance by both the majority and the minority—in effect, how to get universal acceptance for any political proposition. The very idea is incompatible with freedom and democracy. It has nothing to do with what the House wishes to do in local government. I am speaking about the fundamental basis of democracy, which is that the majority should have its way after the minority has had its say.
That is not how we legislate for Northern Ireland. We provide that the minority should have a veto over the decisions of the majority. We instantly bring to an end the normal healthy development of democracy.

Mr. Amery: If we follow the principle of the minority veto, it is intolerable to introduce the guillotine.

Mr. Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend is right. What is being applied in the Bill, and especially in the amendment, is the same sort of idea. Whoever is elected as Presiding Officer needs majority support in the Assembly and also has to command acceptance in the Assembly and in the community generally. That decision should be made, not in terms of legislation passed in this House, but by the individual electors themselves.

Mr. Concannon: Why was that not done in the Convention?

Mr. Stanbrook: That was just another example of the Government trying to get round the problem. There is a minority. The minority happens not to like the way in which the majority goes about its functions. How can we therefore make the policies of the majority acceptable to the minority? It is a conundrum that will never be solved in a free and democratic society like ours.
Opposition Members, augmented by 50 per cent. since our original debates, will no doubt wish to put their propositions in greater detail. It is, however, a waste of hon. Members' time to have to consider the proposition that a candidate must be some one who already commands widespread acceptance. That is a negation of democracy. The matter should be left to the people. They should decide who among them has the greatest support. That person should be allowed to get on with the job.
Why should we assume that any such person will exercise his powers undemocratically? Why should the Opposition not assume, given the traditional experience of this country, that it would be possible for him to act within the normal rules, without the need for legislation?

Mr. Soley: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who referred to the old system as a one-party State? Much has been heard in these debates about the causes of violence. One cause is the political despair of knowing that there is never a chance of winning by legitimate means. If we are serious about ending violence, we should examine the legitimacy of the political system that we set up.

Mr. Stanbrook: The fundamental mistake was to put a Government in Northern Ireland separate from this Parliament. From the start there should have been a system of integration. The difficulty is that within Northern Ireland there have been political passions based on sectarianism. It is a phenomenon seen elsewhere in the world. One or other minority party constitutes the minority while one majority party constantly has the support of the majority of the electorate. That is normal democracy.
If one wants to change that situation, one should perhaps examine the origins of the support. The problems of Northern Ireland may have arisen because there was doubt about the Union, which meant that there had to be a Unionist majority based on the overriding desire—overriding all other political issues—of people to stay in the United Kingdom. Without that problem to contend with, there might be neither sectarianism nor political parties based on sectarian differences. It might be possible to proceed in Northern Ireland as in Wales and Scotland.
It is no use hon. Members saying, in the context of the amendment and the new clause, that by legislation one can make people fair and acceptable to everyone and that someone may not be appointed to this job unless he appears to the Secretary of State to be fair. That is not the way to make progress in Northern Ireland. If there is to be an Assembly, let us trust the people to operate the democratic principle in the normal way.

Mr. Prior: Having just listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I am reminded of a remark that I made, either on the White Paper or on Second Reading—a long time ago—when I gave the somewhat simplistic reply to someone to whom I had given way during my speech that, if there was not a problem in Northern Ireland, there would not be a problem. My hon. Friend has amplified that remark only too well. There is a problem. It is all very well to suggest that, if we had tackled it differently 50 or 60 years ago, we would not have the problem now, but we do have the problem. That is why we have had a serious debate on the matter for the past one and a half hours.
I start on a lighter and more reminiscent mood. One or two hon. Members asked whether there were other Assemblies or Parliaments which did not have an elected Speaker or a Speaker chosen from the elected Members of that Assembly. There are a number, but at short notice it has been somewhat hard to find out exactly which they are. I suppose that the best example is the Senate in the United States. There the Vice-President is the Chairman of the Senate, although he is not a Member for the Senate. That


goes for a number of legislatures in South America and, I suspect, elsewhere. However, I shall not get too involved in that subject.

Mr. Amery: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Prior: As my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage of the Bill called me President Galtieri, or something like that, I do not know whether I should give way to him, but I will.

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Vice-President of the United States. He is elected on a majority ticket. If that were to happen in the Province, who does my right hon. Friend think would be elected, and would that person be someone acceptable to the minority?
I am sure that there are not many Latin-American countries that my right hon. Friend would like to cite as examples of the new Assembly that he is proposing.

Mr. Prior: I shall not follow my right hon. Friend down that path. I want to make my speech in my own way.

Mr. Amery: What about that point?

Mr. Prior: I shall come to my right hon. Friend's point in my own way in my own speech.
I think it is true to say that in the seventeenth century, when the Speaker of the House was appointed by the Monarch, Members began to get fed up with the attitude adopted by the Speaker. On those occasions, the House turned itself into a Committee of the whole House to avoid the Speaker behaving in a dictatorial manner. After the past few sittings, I have certain feelings about the manner in which the Committee of the whole House now operates, but, Mr. Dean, that is no reflection on your ability in the Chair.
This has been an important debate. Under section 24(1) of the Constitution Act, the first business of the new Assembly is to choose a Presiding Officer. That arrangement is not affected by the Bill.
12.30 am
Several right hon. and hon. Members have expressed concern that the arrangements may lead to a Presiding Officer being chosen who might behave in an arbitrary fashion, perhaps when making appointments under clause 4(1) or (2) to the new committees of the Assembly.
To prevent that, an amendment and a new clause have been tabled. New clause 3, in the name of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), proposes that the Presiding Officer should be appointed by the Secretary of State, leaving him free to appoint an acceptable figure, if necessary, from outside the Assembly.
Amendment No. 127, which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), and which was moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), proposes as an alternative solution that the Presiding Officer should be elected by a single transferable vote from a list of three or more persons submitted to the Assembly by the Secretary of State who must first have satisfied himself that each of them commands widespread acceptance throughout the community.
Both those proposals would, in their different ways, give the Secretary of State a crucial role in the appointment of the Presiding Officer.
The speeches made in Committee tonight, particularly that made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr.

Fitt), drawing on his experience of what happened in the distant past and in the setting up of the Assembly in 1973, are important and should be taken carefully into account when deciding the issue of the Presiding Officer.
Of course, there are considerable worries whether a Presiding Officer can carry the necessary confidence and conviction to make him acceptable to all parts of the Assembly. I recognise those worries and I have given them careful consideration.
We have given much thought to this matter over a considerable period. However, the Government believe that the existing arrangement in the Constitution Act should not be disturbed and that the appointment of the Presiding Officer should fall to the Assembly, as happened in 1973.
I want to give the Committee some of the main reasons why I believe that it would be wrong not to have the Presiding Officer elected by the Assembly.
First, it would be wrong in principle for the Secretary of State to be involved so closely in the Assembly's business, especially when it is our intention to give the Assembly the maximum freedom to work out proposals for devolution and when the Assembly has the potential to develop into a legislative body.
One function of the Assembly—in particular, of the departmental committees—is to monitor and criticise the activities of the Secretary of State. It would be odd, in those circumstances, for him to be seen to be making the key appointments. That point was brought out by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). The Secretary of State would be open to the criticism of making appointments or of drawing up a short list for such appointments, so as to give himself the easiest possible ride. It would put the Presiding Officer in a difficult position right from the start if it were thought that he was appointed by and was therefore perhaps under the influence or had won the support at that stage of the Secretary of State.
Secondly, as I explained on Second Reading, the requirements of clause 4(2) are such that there is no question of the Presiding Officer being able to behave in an arbitrary fashion, even if he were minded to do so, and given that the Secretary of State thought that the Presiding Officer would be an immensely powerful man. Of course, he will have a lot to do, but the freedom that he will have has been over-emphasised.
The Committee will recall that, under clause 4(2), the Presiding Officer is already subject to the specific statutory duty to ensure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is reflected, so far as is practicable in the appointments of the chairman and deputy chairman, taken as a whole and in the membership of each committee exclusive of the chairman and deputy chairman. In practice, of course, he could not perform that duty properly without consulting the parties before making any appointments, and he would certainly have to consult them carefully. Although there were no such committees in 1973, when the standing orders were prepared and when it came to the appointment of Deputy Speakers, the Speaker was empowered to consult the various interests in the Assembly
to ensure as far as possible that the nominations are representative".
Therefore, he would have to carry out the same procedures as he did then in talking to the leaders of the various parties and groups in the Assembly.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield drew attention to the fact that the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention was appointed by the Queen, and he was not a Convention Member. In the Government's view, the circumstances of the Assembly are different. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South said, the Convention had a limited role for a relatively short period during which it was required to draw up constitutional proposals. It had no legislative role and could not be turned into a legislative body. On the other hand, the Assembly, although initially without legislative powers, is essentially a legislative body like its predecessor in 1973 and 1974, to which a devolved Government will be answerable.
It is a well-established tradition in the United Kingdom that the legislature should elect one of its number to preside over its proceedings. I have listened carefully to the arguments for departing from that precedent, but I remain of the view that it would be wrong to disturb the provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. I agree with those who argue that it is essential for the Presiding Officer to enjoy the confidence of each Assembly Member. However, that will best be secured by keeping to established custom. I say to those who may take part in the Assembly that if the Presiding Officer is to carry out his very delicate job, he will need broad acceptance. if he does not have it, it will not work. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. However, I believe that the vast majority of Members of the Assembly—I hope all—will want the Assembly to work and will seek to ensure that the Presiding Officer is acceptable to all cross sections of the Assembly.

Mr. Concannon: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point about the difference between the Convention and the 1973 Assembly. However, we appointed the Chairman of the Convention in that way for the very reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and I were there in 1973 and we were there for the Convention. We saw what happened in 1973 and we do not want the same situation to arise. I accept that there is a difference between the Convention and what happened in the Assembly, but the reasons for the appointment were the same as those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West.

Mr. Prior: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, save that, although he had the experience of 1973 and therefore judged it right not to allow the Convention to elect a Speaker from its midst, after all the shenanigans it was able to elect a Presiding Officer from its midst—Mr. Nat Minford. He was an example of a good Presiding Officer and all settled down.
I should be worried about any appointment by the Secretary of State. We are seeking to place the responsibility upon the people of Northern Ireland. It is for the people of Northern Ireland to come to their own decisions. If they make a mess of it, that is up to them. I hope that they will not make a mess of it, but, if they do, that is their affair. I believe that the Assembly will prove itself, as it did with Mr. Minford and Sir Norman Stronge, to whom tributes have been paid. Most people who occupy that great Chair and draw their traditions from the House of Commons recognise that they have a duty to safeguard the interests of the Assembly as a whole and of individual Assembly Members, irrespective of their political views.
I recognise the anxieties which have given rise to the amendments and the new clause. I do not dismiss them lightly. One can argue about the construction of the amendments and STV, but I understand what is behind them. The past conduct of elected representatives in Northern Ireland does not justify the assumption that the impartiality of the occupant of the Chair will not be respected.
The tradition stemming from the House of Commons, that once a Member takes the Chair he leaves his party behind and is responsible to the whole House, is very deep. On that basis, I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment, however well intentioned it is. I ask the Committee to give to the people who will form the new Assembly the right, opportunity and responsibility for making the decision about their own Presiding Officer.

Mr. James A. Dunn: The Secretary of State has answered the debate persuasively. I intend no discourtesy, nor do I wish to demonstrate that I disagree fundamentally with some of what he said, but I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment in the Lobby.
The arguments have not been answered to our satisfaction. I took it amiss that several hon. Members spoke emotively and attributed to me a knowledge and experience of rubbish. Hon. Members who alleged that were not here to listen to the opening speeches and they were absent when the Secretary of State replied.
I hope that the House will take note of those who plead with an open heart and say that they will take nothing less than they require. If that is the behaviour that they wish to impose on Northern Ireland, it is not required. They have enough problems without that.
There must be broad community support for the Speaker of the Assembly. If we were to follow the traditions of this House and the custom of recognition of and courtesy between Members who disagree fundamentally and politically, there would not be a problem. However, the post of Speaker will include the major responsibility of appointing chairmen and deputy chairmen of committees. He must take into account the balance of the political parties and the majority and minority communities. He must take into account all the influencing factors, perhaps even religion. If the post attracts such responsibilities, the Secretary of State should also become involved.
I have great regard for the office of Secretary of State, as well as for the person who holds it. The Assembly will probably not respond in the way that he fears, although I can understand his reluctance to be committed. He wishes to see the matter evolve in a way that will not cause the conflict that he fears.
The Secretary of State believes that the Assembly should take those decisions. He does not wish to be involved, because he has problems of his own, and he takes the view "Let the Assembly take the decisions and face the consequences." If he really meant that, he would not have fought so hard and for so long in Committee for this Bill. I chide him in generosity, and I go no further.
If the Committee does not take account of the special needs of Northern Ireland and the special problems that will occur because of the duties to be imposed on the Presiding Officer, and if it does not bear in mind the political and other pressures that will be put on him, I fear


for the future. The Committee should come to a decision tonight. Perhaps the Secretary of State will take account of the Division and bear it in mind on Report.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 32, Noes 129.

Division No. 238]
[10.40 pm


AYES


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Farr, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Budgen, Nick
Kilfedder, James A.


Dunlop, John
Knight, Mrs Jill




Lawrence, Ivan
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.



Molyneaux, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Murphy, Christopher
Mr. William Ross and


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.


NOES


Arnold, Tom
Mellor, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Miscampbell, Norman


Beith, A.J.
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Moate, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Montgomery, Fergus


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Moore, John


Blackburn, John
Mudd, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Myles, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Neale, Gerrard


Braine, Sir Bernard
Needham, Richard


Brooke, Hon Peter
Newton, Tony


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Onslow, Cranley


Butcher, John
Osborn, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Chapman, Sydney
Patten John (Oxford)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Pawsey, James


Cope, John
Pollock, Alexander


Costain, Sir Albert
Prior, Rt Hon James


Dorrell, Stephen
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Dover, Denshore
Rhodes James, Robert


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dunn, James A.
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Roper, John


Fitt, Gerard
Rossi, Hugh


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Goodlad, Alastair
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Greenway, Harry
Scott, Nicholas


Hamilton, Hon A.
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawksley, Warren
Silvester, Fred


Heddle, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hill, James
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hordern, Peter
Speed, Keith


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Speller, Tony


Howells, Geraint
Stainton, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stevens, Martin


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Donald


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Thornton, Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Trotter, Neville


Latham, Michael
Waller, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Watson, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lyell, Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Wickenden, Keith


MacGregor, John
Wolfson, Mark


Madel, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Major, John



Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tellers for the Noes:


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and


Mather, Carol
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones

Division No. 239]
[12.50 am


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
McCartney, Hugh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morton, George


Dalyell, Tam
Palmer, Arthur


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Penhaligon, David


Dewar, Donald
Pitt, William Henry


Dormand, Jack
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Dubs, Alfred
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Soley, Clive


Evans, John (Newton)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fitch, Alan
Welsh, Michael


George, Bruce



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Haynes, Frank
Mr. John Roper.


NOES


Arnold, Tom
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Aspinwall, Jack
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Kilfedder, James A.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Berry, Hon Anthony
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Knight, Mrs Jill


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Latham, Michael


Biggs-Davison. Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Blackburn, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Lyell, Nicholas


Braine, Sir Bernard
Macfarlane, Neil


Brooke, Hon Peter
MacGregor, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Madel, David


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Major, John


Budgen, Nick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Butcher, John
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Mather, Carol


Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)
Mellor, David


Chapman, Sydney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Cope, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Costain, Sir Albert
Moate, Roger


Cranborne, Viscount
Molyneaux, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus


Dover, Denshore
Moore, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mudd, David


Dunlop, John
Murphy, Christopher


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Myles, David


Farr, John
Neale, Gerrard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Needham, Richard


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Newton, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Onslow, Cranley


Goodlad, Alastair
Osborn, John


Gorst, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Greenway, Harry
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Pawsey, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pollock, Alexander


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hawksley, Warren
Proctor, K. Harvey


Heddle, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hill, James
Rhodes, James, Robert


Hordern, Peter
RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunl, John (Ravensbourne)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)





Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rossi, Hugh
Thompson, Donald


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Thornton, Malcolm


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trippier, David


Scott, Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waller, Gary


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Silvester, Fred
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Wickenden, Keith


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stainton, Keith



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevens, Martin
Mr. David Hunt and


Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Ian Lang.


Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)

Question accordingly negatived.

THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at One o' clock.
Amendments made: No. 115, in page 10, line 6, leave out from 'Minister' to end of line 8.

No. 87, in page 12, line 4, after '2', insert 'or 5(3)'.—[Mr. Prior.]

THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at One o'clock.

Question put, That this schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 112, Noes 22.

Division No. 240]
[1.00 am


AYES


Arnold, Tom
Hordern, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Atkinson, David (B' m' th, E)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Beith, A.J.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lang, Ian


Blackburn, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bottomley, Peter (W' wich W)
Lyell, Nicholas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Macfarlane, Neil


Braine, Sir Bernard
MacGregor, John


Brown, Ronald W, (H'ckn'y S)
Madel, David


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Major, John


Butcher, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)
Mather, Carol


Chapman, Sydney
Mellor, David


Clark, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Costain, Sir Albert
Miscampbell, Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Dover, Denshore
Montgomery, Fergus


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Moore, John


Dunn, James A.
Mudd, David


Dunn, Robe (Dartford)
Myles, David


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Neale, Gerrard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Needham, Richard


Goodlad, Alastair
Newton, Tony


Greenway, Harry
Onslow, Cranley


Gummer, John Selwyn
Osborn, John


Hamilton, Hon A.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Heddle, John
Penhaligon, David


Hill, James
Pitt, William Henry






Pollock, Alexander
Stevens, Martin


Prior, Rt Hon James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Donald


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trippier, David


Roper, John
Trotter, Neville


Rossi, Hugh
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Watson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Scott, Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wickenden, Keith


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Silvester, Fred
Younger, Rt Hon George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Speed, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speller, Tony
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. David Hunt.


NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Lawrence, Ivan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Molyneaux, James


Budgen, Nick
Murphy, Christopher


Cranborne, Viscount
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Cryer, Bob
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Dunlop, John
Skinner, Dennis


Farr, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John



Kilfedder, James A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Mr. William Ross and


Latham, Michael
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended agreed to.

Clause 7

SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND REPEALS

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 112, Noes 20.

Division No. 241]
[1.15 am


AYES


Arnold, Tom
Gummer, John Selwyn


Aspinwall, Jack
Hamilton, Hon A.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S' thorne)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Beith, A.J.
Heddle, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hill, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Blackburn, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lang, Ian


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Latham, Michael


Butcher, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Lyell, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Macfarlane, Neil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, John


Cope, John
Madel, David


Costain, Sir Albert
Major, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dover, Denshore
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mather, Carol


Dunn, James A.
Mellor, David


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Greenway, Harry
Moate, Roger





Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Moore, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mudd, David
Silvester, Fred


Myles, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Neale, Gerrard
Speed, Keith


Needham, Richard
Speller, Tony


Newton, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Onslow, Cranley
Steel, Rt Hon David


Osborn, John
Stevens, Martin


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald


Penhaligon, David
Trippier, David


Pitt, William Henry
Trotter, Neville


Pollock, Alexander
Waller, Gary


Prior, Rt Hon James
Watson, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wheeler, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wickenden, Keith


Roper, John
Wolfso, Mark


Rossi, Hugh
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.



Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Scott, Nicholas
Mr. David Hunt and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Molyneaux, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Murphy, Christopher


Budgen, Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Cryer, Bob
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Dunlop, John
Skinner, Dennis


Farr, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John



Kilfedder, James A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Knight, Mrs Jill
Mr. William Ross and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. K. Harvey-Proctor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Question put, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 111, Noes 21.

Division No. 242]
[1.25 am


AYES


Arnold, Tom
Dorrell, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Denshore


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S' thorne)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Atkinson, David (B' m' th, E)
Dunn, James A.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Beith, A. J.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Good lad, Alastair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, Harry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Blackburn, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hawksley, Warren


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Heddle, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hill, James


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Butcher, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Cope, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Costain, Sir Albert
Lang, Ian






Latham, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roper, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rossi, Hugh


Lyell, Nicholas
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacGregor, John
Scott, Nicholas


Madel, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Major, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Silvester, Fred


Mather, Carol
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mellor, David
Speed, Keith


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speller, Tony


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stainton, Keith


Miscampbell, Norman
Steel, Rt Hon David


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Martin


Montgomery, Fergus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moore, John
Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)


Mudd, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Myles, David
Thompson, Donald


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Needham, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Tony
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Cranley
Watson, John


Osborn, John
Wells, Bowen


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wheeler, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wickenden, Keith


Pawsey, James
Wolfson, Mark


Penhallgon, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Pitt, William Henry



Pollock, Alexander
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Budgen, Nick


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cranborne, Viscount


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Cryer, Bob





Dunlop, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Farr, John
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Skinner, Dennis


Gorst, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Kilfedder, James A.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Mrs Jill



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Ross and


Molyneaux, James
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.


Murphy, Christopher

Question accordingly agreed to

Schedule 3 agreed to

Whereupon THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to Order [22 June]

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, to be considered this day; and to be printed.[Bill 150.]

OIL AND GAS (ENTERPRISE) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the British National Oil Corporation, to abolish the National Oil Account, to make further provision with respect to the British Gas Corporation and to make provision for and in connection with the supply of gas through pipes by persons other than the Corporation, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to the British National Oil Corporation or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries towards expenditure incurred by the Corporation or subsidiary in or in connection with the exercise of the power conferred on the Corporation by section 2(1)(e) of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 as amended by the said Act of the present Session. —[Mr.Goodlad.]

Orders of the Day — Agriculture and Horticulture

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this debate, and I am grateful for the warm support which I gather comes from both sides of the House in these small hours of the morning. It shows the popularity of the subject that I propose to discuss. I thank those who are staying behind to listen to the debate. It shows a measure of solidarity.
The Minister knows that I support British membership of the EEC, and I understand the reasons why it was thought necessary to include Spain and Portugal in the Community. I do not oppose their entry.
To those who suggest that I take a protectionist line, I can only say that I am not a protectionist. I welcome freer trade in manufactures, commercial products and agriculture produce. Higher tariff walls and artificial restrictions on trade and the free movement of goods and services are inimical to the greater prosperity of nations, stultify initiative, raise prices and lead to loss of competitiveness, but there is bound to be a limit to what any country can and should tolerate.
Agriculture is one of our basic industries, and it is highly competitive. We live in a country which is a net importer of food. Our agriculture industry has learnt to live with high imports, and no one is asking for a ban on them. However, we must be concerned with the level at which imports begin to weaken and ultimately destroy large sectors of our agriculture industry, which, for a mixture of economic and social reasons, is essential and therefore must be maintained.
As it now stands, the strain of the CAP has created bad blood in the Community and has already led Britain into a crisis in its relationship with fellow Members. The enlargement of the EEC brings nations whose climatic conditions alone will make it even more difficult for northern nations of the Community to adjust.
It is one thing to create a Common Market in industrial products and commercial services among nations in similar stages of development. Lord knows, that is proving difficult enough in all conscience. It is quite another thing to try to create a Common Market in agricultural products among nations which range from Cape Wrath to the Straits of Gibraltar. It would be more dramatic if one took it in lines of latitude. That could well bring into the Community a rock of a different kind, against which the Community could dash itself to pieces.
One would be complacent to disregard the warnings contained in facts for all to see. Agriculture accounts for over 30 per cent. of total employment in Portugal and about 20 per cent. in Spain, compared with about 8 per cent. in the existing Community. It contributes about 13 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively to the GDP, in contrast to 4·2 per cent. attributed to agriculture in the EEC.
Portugal is likely to export poultrymeat by the mid-1980s. It is already self-sufficient in egg production and it is forecast that it will become a sheepmeat exporting country.
Portugal's entry has serious implications for Britain's fruit growers. As a big producer of non-temperate climate

fruits, it must inevitably cut into the demand for homegrown fruit. Citrus production is increasing. The acreage of apples and pears doubled between 1970 and 1977.
Spain poses an even greater threat to farmers and growers than Portugal. When it joins the Community, it will increase EEC early potato production by 39 per cent., barley production by 20 per cent., and tomato production by 45 per cent. Spain is destined, so I am told, to be a potential barley producer as acreage and yields increase.
A myth has developed that Spain is desperately short of livestock. In fact, it is 90 per cent. self-sufficient in beef and is the second largest EEC sheep producing nation. There is a large pig population and it is likely to be a pigmeat exporter. Spanish poultry production is similar in size to that of the United Kingdom. More generally, Spain acts as an exporter in this sector.
Hon. Members will not wish me to underline the situation with regard to Spanish fruit. It is really that set out in relation to Portugal. There have been enormous increases in the production of apples and pears.
It may be said that the average farm in Portugal and Spain is small, that it is all rather peasant-like, that the holdings are fragmented and that the level of mechanisation in fertiliser usage is limited. That is all true, but of course entry into the EEC will bring access to Community funds.
Even in the existing Community, agreement on resource transfers proves difficult to achieve. At a time when the Community is reaching its budget ceiling, a commitment to transfer resources to the new member States would require either the Community's own resources to be increased or a substantial cut to be made in expenditure on existing Community policies. That option would have serious repercussions for British agriculture, horticulture, and, indeed, other parts of the economy.
There is a considerable potential for expansion in Spain, where yields, as we know, of many products are relatively low, but where irrigation and structural measures, perhaps aided by FEOGA funds, could dramatically raise output.
It is put about by the Ministry that rain does not fall so much on the plains of Spain. However, there is far more to irrigation than that. The use of water has greater potential. Therefore, it is thought that the 3 million hectares presently irrigated could be increased by a further million by the year 2,000. That is a substantial increase. In recent years the area protected by glass and plastic has expanded rapidly.
It is said by those who think that we should be more relaxed about the matter that Spain's lower production costs would be offset by higher transportation costs. I wonder if that is so. I doubt whether the transportation costs are sufficient to offset Spain's other cost advantages. Therefore, Spain must constitute a serious threat to United Kingdom growers.
There are many other problems, but other hon. Members wish to speak and I shall not detain the House. I know that olive oil poses serious problems not only for us but for the Community. It is feared that the benefits that will accrue to both countries through the EEC farm modernisation directives coupled with their climatic advantages, could convert the existing threat into something far more serious. I refer to the eventual destruction of some sectors of British fanning and horticulture.
The Minister may say that my fears are exaggerated. Let us have proof of that. What detailed analysis has the Ministry made of the long-term impact of the entry of Spain and Portugal into the Community? Will the Minister undertake to publish such an analysis in the forseeable future? If one does not exist in the Ministry, is he prepared to finance, jointly with the National Farmers Union, an independent research programme? A study might be prepared by the Centre for European Studies at Wye college. I do not want the Minister to draw my attention to some Select Committee document or to some document published by the other place. That will not deal with the issue.
In my part of the world, members of the NFU are rightly suspicious that Foreign Office pressure will lead Ministers to ignore the dangers that enlargement must pose. We understand the Foreign Office's fascination with Spain's inclusion. We understand how Foreign Office judgment has led us to make serious mistakes in many other areas. The industry needs to be reassured that my right hon. Friend the Minister will press for adequate safeguards before those two countries join the Community. For example, seasonal quotas might be discussed. Therefore, I expect my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to give us that assurance in principle this morning.

Mr. John Wells: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on his perspicacity in raising this important subject and on his luck in the ballot.
Many of us—not only in Kent but in other horticulture areas—are concerned about this issue. Horticultural products represent about one-third by value and volume of all the food that we eat, to say nothing of the buttonholes that we wear and the flowers in our homes. The entire spectrum of those valuable and important products will be put at risk because of the knock-on effect. My hon. Friend dealt with apples and some general agricultural produce, but the entire spectrum of horticultural produce will be at risk. As the horticulturists of southern France find themselves in competition with Spain and Portugal, they will go into new crops. The horticulturists of northern France will also change crops. There will be more production of crops that we now consider to be exclusively produced in the United Kingdom or in northern Europe.
I have had letters from people in the nursery trade. I declare an interest because I am in the nursery trade and know that sector's practical difficulties. I join my hon, Friend in seeking assurances, but I also wish to reassure the Minister that the horticulture industry is not so foolish or naive as to think that its small voice will prevent Spain and Portugal from joining the Community. We are not children. We live in the real world. We hope that the Minister and the Foreign Office also live in that world and will give us some comfort.
The glasshouse industry has had an appalling winter with high fuel prices and assurances that the Dutch would be brought under control, but that does not seem to have happened. It is another sector of horticulture which is suffering. We want some assurances for the future.
My hon. Friend, in passing, dealt with transport. I understand that many heavy lorries which bring in

horticultural produce are in breach of our road traffic regulations. That is not the Minister's responsibility, but I hope that he will urge police at Channel and other ports to cast a vigilant eye on incoming lorries to ensure that they are not in breach of our laws or the laws of other EEC countries.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I add my voice to discussions on competition within the Community as it relates to horticultural products, particularly tomatoes, the principal glasshouse product in my constituency.
Two aspects are relevant in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said. The first is that, according to the West Sussex growers, the March and April figures for tomato imports from the Canary Islands depressed the price of tomatoes to the 1980 level—a disastrous level. The Canary Islands presence in the market is a factor which must be borne in mind when considering future relationships with Spain.
On the wider aspects of competition, I hope that the Minister will say that he sees in the accession of Spain and Portugal an opportunity to examine the market structure and the way in which the market will work on a broad basis. In time horticulture might be in a similar position to the European Coal and Steel Community. Market distortion has brought Governments together to discuss problems on a wide basis.
The Dutch energy subsidy is not to be phased out until next spring. That represents even greater competition than that from Spain and Portugal. Our energy costs are likely to rise again, and the industry is facing difficulties on many fronts. I hope that the Minister will examine the problems and use the opportunity of the accession of Spain and Portugal for further and deep studies.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and others of my hon. Friends for raising this subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being successful in the ballot and on his choice of subject. The matter is serious. There is no question of the Government disregarding, or being careless about the implications of Spanish and Portuguese entry into the Community.
We are aware of the potential threats and the problems for which we must prepare. I should be disappointed if it were thought that we were not treating the matter seriously or showing proper foresight and preparation for what might happen in a few years. We treat the matter seriously and will continue to do so. I give my hon. Friends that absolute assurance.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead rightly said that we should be worried about the implications and problems, but I must make it clear that the Government are firmly committed to Spanish and Portuguese entry to the Community. In the interests of democracy in Western Europe, those countries should join and thereby strengthen our political unity. However, we must also be aware of the advantages for British exporters from their accession. The Government are firmly committed to the enlargement of the Community, but that does not mean that we shall overlook the problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) spoke of the problems facing our horticulturists because of


the additional benefits enjoyed by the Dutch glasshouse industry. My hon. Friend is right, but I hope that he will acknowledge that my right hon. Friend has consistently been in the forefront when seeking fair play for our industry. By applying pressure on the Commission to take appropriate action and by co-ordinating with other European Ministers, whose industries face similar problems because of Dutch action, we have continually taken the initiative in trying to deal with the threat of the Dutch growers, who have the advantage of subsidised fuel prices. We must also give credit to my right hon. Friend for negotiating additional help for our industry. I know that the industry would have wished more help, given the severe competition that it faced. However, the financial help that we have given with adaptation aids and the lead that we have taken in Europe cannot show any lack of concern on our part.
The Dutch growers must adapt by the spring of 1983, and it is possible that our adaptation aids will be continued during next winter. None of that shows a lack of concern. What my right hon. Friend has done about the marketing of apples shows that we have taken a firm and positive lead and done all that we can to assist this important section of agriculture and horticulture. I say that to show that we do not lack anxiety or preparation for future problems.
I understand the sensitivities of those in agriculture and horticulture who are worried about Portuguese and Spanish accession to the Community. They point out the benefits of climate and the problems that higher prices for some commodities may bring in terms of increased production. We are aware of those matters. In the recent price-fixing round, I took the lead for the United Kingdom when we discussed Mediterranean produce, especially olive oil.
We are always ready to remind our European colleagues of the immediate effects of some of the price increases of Mediterranean products and the implications that certain pricing decisions will have following enlargement. There have been occasions when the Commission and the Community have not shown the foresight that we wished. They are introducing policies and principles that may be appropriate for the Community at its present size, but we must look ahead to see what effect they will have when they are applied to an enlarged Community. I have reminded my Community colleagues of some of the immediate as well as long-term effects of Community policies.
We must be concerned about the accession of Portugal and Spain because of the climate and geographical conditions that they enjoy, but we must not lose perspective. I have been urged not to shrug off Portuguese agriculture because it is backward and on a comparatively small scale. I do not shrug it off on those grounds and I hope that others will not. I accept that we shall have to face and be realistic about competition. In many respects, Portugal's agriculture is far behind ours. There may be scope for Portugal to increase its production, but the necessary changes in structure and organisation would have to be dramatic before it reached the standards of our industry and of the industry of other parts of the Community.
We know from events in Europe before we joined the Community that the opportunities for change in the short

term are not especially great, but I am concerned about the competition that we shall face. Portugal is importing about 50 per cent. of her supplies of food and feeding stuffs. I am sure that my hon. Friends will have read the short article that appeared in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times about these matters. That article underlined the tremendous obstacles that our competitors will have to overcome before they reach our standards of efficiency.
Competition in the egg and poultrymeat markets must be watched, but it must be put into perspective. In Portugal, we are talking about poultrymeat production of about 3 per cent. of the total production within the enlarged Community. It is a small percentage, but I accept that it is significant. It should also be remembered that total production of sheepmeat is about 18,000 tonnes. That must be set against total production within the United Kingdom of about 275,000 tonnes. Sheepmeat prices are not all that dissimilar from prices in the Community. We must not exaggerate the threat, but we must watch it and be ready for it.
I acknowledge that Spain is a larger and more developed country with a high standard of efficiency in agriculture. However, Spain remains a considerable net importer of northern European products, such as cereals. As I said, the prices of many commodities in the countries that we are discussing are not so very different from Community prices. That is different from when Britain and Ireland joined the Community, with no transitional period. There were enormous boosts for production. The current price levels of some of the commodities in Spain are not very different from the European levels, but if there is a big difference, as we saw in Ireland, there can be a dramatic effect in a short time on production increases.
It is true that Spain has irrigation problems, so there is a physical limitation on increases in production, but they can be overcome if it is physically possible to find the water. It is not always physically possible to find the water, and even if one does, as in this country, with our better rainfall, irrigation is not a cheap project in which to indulge. It requires heavy investment. I know from my contacts with my Spanish opposite numbers that there are certain physical and cost limitations on expansion.
I agree that the real worry about Spain will be on the horticultural side, especially vegetables. Already we compete with Spain. Apples and pears have also been mentioned. We are alive to that worry and shall watch developments closely.
My hon. Friend asked specifically whether we would carry out more research. I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said. However, an enormous amount of information is already available to us. It is not just from our own sources. My hon. Friend is right. We have shown what is available to us. I am not talking of what the House of Lords Committee published, but the evidence that we gave to that Committee demonstrates the information that we have, and we shall continue to update it.
A considerable amount of work has also been done by other independent bodies. For example, information has been collected by the European Commission. Work has been done by the Meat and Livestock Commission, the result of which is available, and by bodies such as Agra Europe, the quality of work of which is normally high. We shall take into account all that work, from whatever


source. Much academic work has also been done. I shall make sure that the information that we have is updated. If more is needed I shall consider that carefully.
I shall make two points about the negotiations.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.